BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

For more information to help people develop better stoves for cooking with biomass fuels in developing regions, please see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org

To join the discussion list and see the current archives, please use this page: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org

September 2001 Biomass Cooking Stoves Archive

For more messages see our 1996-2004 Biomass Stoves Discussion List Archives.

From psanders at ilstu.edu Sun Sep 2 14:04:10 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010902130552.01a29580@mail.ilstu.edu>

Briquettes with holes

Dear Stovers and Friends,

My goodness, we all have been quiet for the past weeks.

Here is a summary of my current efforts and thoughts:

One issue is the holes in the briquettes.  I wanted to test having
multiple (3 or 4) holes in the standard briquettes advocated by Richard
Stanley and the Legacy Foundation, of which I am a believer and
advocate.

I took an existing 4 inch (10 cm) diameter (and about 5 inches 13 cm
high) recycled biomass briquette that had one hole.  I plugged the
center hole (not very well, but sufficient) with the same materials that
I cut out of the briquette when I DRILLED three holes down through the
diameter-side.  The drill bit said
5/8th
inch (about 1.5 cm), being slightly smaller than the standard center-hole
in Richard’s briquettes.

After some “playing around”, I wrapped the briquette fairly tightly in a
piece of thin sheet metal (easily cut with tin-snips), tied it with a
discarded wire coat hanger, and thereby created a cylinder about 8 inches
(20 cm) high.  [Therefore, there was some chimney effect.] 
Plenty of air was available through the bar-b-q grill under the
cylinder.

Wow, did it burn well!!  All three holes were shooting flames. 
No detectable smoke (the “eyes and nose” test).  Sorry, no
photograph yet available.  But it looks like Richard’s pictures of
flames from a central hole, but this time with 3 holes blazing
away.

Second:  That lowly test (plus my limited experiences making and
burning briquettes in my backyard and in Mozambique) leads me to the
following items, each of which needs additional research:

1.  There is a wealth of heat-generating benefits from having
different numbers of holes in the briquettes.

2.  They can be made easily using the same technology as the
single-hole ones.  (Ed Francis and I are working on making the
piston / press-plunger for multiple holes.)    Note: 
We can use the same 4-inch (inside diameter PVC pipe) for the
cylinder.

3.  The stove needs to snuggly hold the briquette (to minimize the
outside burning, where temperatures are lower and combustion is less
efficient/effective).

4.  The 4-inch (10 cm) diameter is possibly too SMALL.  I want
to experiment with briquettes that would just fit into a standard “number
10 tin”  (which is American talk for a metal can about 7 inches (18
cm) in diameter and about 8 inches (20 cm) high.

5.  Technically, there is no requirement that the briquette is
round.   Square ones could fit together better in a larger
stove.    Although this is a relatively minor issue at
present, I believe that commercially produced (home industry) large
briquettes might give some significant advantages when placed in “better”
(probably larger and more costly) stoves with special characteristics
such as are mentioned in the next item.

6.  A stove (even a small one for a standard-size briquette) could
be made in which the briquette with a “standardized” hole configuration
would rest on a base plate that has the desired number of properly spaced
2 or 3 cm holes (for air) in the plate.  Those holes could be easily
closed (use “plugs” or stoppers or sliders of metal?) or opened so that
burning could be somewhat controlled.  For example, ignite 4 holes
but later shift back to only 2 or one, or almost none as in the
“slow-combustion stoves” that I know of from Brazil and Australia.

7.  Couple all of this with the varieties of briquette materials (I
am thinking of the 40% charcoal “dust” briquettes we are making in
Mozambique for experiments) and you could have some major “user-control”
of the types of fires available.

So, I will continue to have fun with the briquettes project.  Your
comments will be carefully studied.   We need LOTS of help and
further experimentation of all types in different settings.

And to Ron L and others:  Does anything said above make enough sense
to get included into someone’s grant proposal for Shell Foundation or
other sources?  IF yes, please let me know.  I would be very
interested in being part of a team effort.

I am SOOOOOO sorry that I will not be attending the biomass conference in
September in Orlando.  I would learn a lot and meet many of
you.  But I am just an amateur and a true beginner with this stoves
stuff.

Having fun !!

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State
University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice: 
309-438-7360;  FAX:  309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sun Sep 2 22:10:36 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Help me with a Question--PLEASE (on charcoal combustors)
In-Reply-To: <5367-3B929267-435@storefull-213.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <01bc01c1341d$3a962960$a1b16441@computer>

"Nay" (Nadine)

I am sending this on to the full "stoves" list, as this raises some
interesting questions: Please see the tentative answers below. I hope
other stovers will join in.

----- Original Message -----
From: "nay" <NB-1@webtv.net>
To: <larcon@sni.net>
Cc: <nb-1@webtv.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 2:11 PM
Subject: Help me with a Question--PLEASE

>
> I recently stumbled on a very old
> Better Homes& Gardens cook book
> the particular article that caught my attention says as follows.....
>
(RWL): Could you give us the date of the book and page numbers of this
article - as I like most of the instructions and it might be fun to see the
original, if we can fnd it.

> ""You can make a whole group of multi-size
> grills from clay flowerpots and saucers.

(RWL): Clay is an excellent material for "grills". The only down side
is not being as tough as metal - and so probably won't last as long. They
should be easily able to handle the temperature involved - but it would be
best to try to heat evenly. The saucer is probably not too necessary - but
offers no harm,

> Line pots to brim with foil; fill 2/3 full of (mica-like insulating
> pellets--or use sand or gravel topped with a square of foil.

(RWL): The reason for the (aluminum) foil is that it is a good heat
reflector. Putting a layer on the outside of the flowerpot will also reduce
radiative losses even further.

The "mica-like insulating pellets" (maybe the word "vermiculite" was
here) is a non-flamable, relatively high temperature lightweight insulating
material. I have not seen vermiculite "pellets" - but rather we see small
expanded very light weigth pieces about as big as a large grain of wheat.

I don't like the idea of sand as much - as it will absorb and
/conduct/transmit a lot more heat. Gravel should be less dense and better -
even allowing some air flow upward. Best might be a real lightweight "lava
material". In the absence of other things, dirt will work pretty well.

The idea of filling 2/3 high is probably a compromise - of getting
enough sand (?) in weight in place for stability - and leaving some room
above for obtaining a uniform heat distribution for the hamburgers, hotdogs,
roasts, chickens (getting pretty large for only 6-8 briquettes).

The "square of foil" is again to reflect heat upwards. Several layers
with vermiculite between will be an even better lower insulator.

One part of this description I don't like is that there is no mention of
air flow from below. Air will definitely get to the lighted charcoal pillow
briquettes by spilling over the top of the flower pot - but maybe not as
much as you would like. And if you have a lot of vermiculite or sand, there
will not be much coming up from the bottom. If one could put small holes or
slits in the flower pot sides or one larger hole with a grate below, your
flower pot would look a lot more like the "jikos" that we see developed for
charcoal burning. (Jikos are often advertised as being best with 19 holes
(rings of 6 and 12 around a central hole.)

>Add 6--8
> charcoal briquets, lighter fluid, and set aflame.

(RWL): The person on our list who has done the most R&D with charcoal
combustion is Paul Hait - President of a firm called Pyromid. Hopefully
Paul can chime in with some ideas for small scale testing of air flow. Paul
sells units of different sizes made of stainless steel (good reflector,
relatively poor on heat conduction), that are carefully designed to reflect
a majority of heat upward. He never piles briquettes on each other, but
rather places them on edge facing each other in what he terms a "harmonic
array". This way the energy radiated sideways is largely captured by a
neighbor and works to keep each briquette hot - which you want. His bottom
plate has slits to hold the briquettes and other holes to supply air between
the briquettes. Because of his patents, you can't make and sell something
similar, but I would suggest his basic concepts of fuel placement and
careful use of reflectors and air holes are worth observing. I don't
remember his statements about fuel savings but they are considerable.
Again, just try to redirect all energy upwards

There are some places that discourage or prohibit the use of lighter
fluids - as they are a major cause of ozone production. Try surrounding the
charcoal with a "tall" cylinder of metal or ceramics and the added "chimney
draft" will help a lot to cut down on the starter fluid. Also try putting
some vaseline on a few cotton swabs. Much safer.

>Cover top with wire
> mesh or cake rack"

(RWL): Generally jikos I have seen have the cookpot sitting right on the
charcoal - but the normal American backyard cooker needs something to put
the meat (or potatoes, etc) on. The author is mentioning wire mesh as this
is presumably supposed to be a low cost approach.

> ( IS THAT POSSIBLE ---- I DONT WANT TO BLOW UP NEW YORK )
>
(RWL): Nothing much can go wrong here. The only thing worth worrying
about is that I would avoid cooking indoors. This list has heard a lot
about charcoal producing carbon monoxide - an odorless lethal gas.

> What puzzles me is:
> What is Insulating mica--like pellets & where could I purchase such a
> product?.
>
(RWL): Bags can usually be found in garden shops - to be used to help
aerate soil. I would recommend lightweight "lava" as well.

>
> I did a search VIA internet ---That's how I came across this web-site.
>
>
"""http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/msg01201.html"""
>
> any Info that you submit would be gratefully appreciated.
>
> Thank You Kindly
> .................Nadine---NY
>

Nadine - I'm glad you found us. Surprisingly, in over five years now
we have not really had this same question. This list mostly exists to try
to
improve the efficiency and health safety of simple wood and charcoal
stoves - but we have done very little along this line of reporting
experiments with simple home-made charcoal cookers. As you wrote to me
off-list, I hope you will maybe join us as a (free) list member, but at
least report back on what you learn as you experiment. Keep looking into
the "stoves" list archives as others may join in.

As I have some flower pots around, I think I will try some experiments -
especially on this issue of air supply.

Stovers? More to say? Anyone know how to make the perfect jiko? Anyone
know of comparative amounts of CO with different designs?

Ron

 

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sun Sep 2 22:11:20 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010902130552.01a29580@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <01bb01c1341d$34771580$a1b16441@computer>

 

Hi Paul - 

Thanks for your report. 
See some notes and questions below.
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Paul S.
Anderson
To: <A
href="mailto:ajmalawene01@hotmail.com"
title=ajmalawene01@hotmail.com>Apolinário J Malawene ; <A
href="mailto:bobkarlaweldon@cs.com" title=bobkarlaweldon@cs.com>Bob and Karla
Weldon ; Ed
Francis ; <A href="mailto:rstanley@legacyfound.org"
title=rstanley@legacyfound.org>Richard Stanley ; <A
href="mailto:rwalt@gocpc.com" title=rwalt@gocpc.com>Robb Walt ; <A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org" title=stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org ;
<A href="mailto:TOMBREED@HOME.COM"
title=TOMBREED@HOME.COM>TOMBREED@HOME.COM ; <A
href="mailto:ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz"
title=ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz>Tsamba--Alberto Julio ; <A
href="mailto:clucas33@yahoo.com"
title=clucas33@yahoo.com>clucas33@yahoo.com ; <A
href="mailto:clucas@zebra.uem.mz"
title=clucas@zebra.uem.mz>clucas@zebra.uem.mz
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 12:07
PM
Subject: Briquettes with holes

Briquettes with holesDear Stovers
and Friends,My goodness, we all have been quiet for the past
weeks.Here is a summary of my current efforts and thoughts:One
issue is the holes in the briquettes.  I wanted to test having multiple
(3 or 4) holes in the standard briquettes advocated by Richard Stanley and the
Legacy Foundation, of which I am a believer and advocate.I took an
existing 4 inch (10 cm) diameter (and about 5 inches 13 cm high) recycled
biomass briquette that had one hole.  I plugged the center hole (not very
well, but sufficient) with the same materials that I cut out of the briquette
when I DRILLED three holes down through the diameter-side.  The drill bit
said 5/8th<FONT
face="Arial, Helvetica"> inch (about 1.5 cm), being slightly smaller than the
standard center-hole in Richard&#8217;s briquettes.
After some &#8220;playing around&#8221;, I wrapped
the briquette fairly tightly in a piece of thin sheet metal (easily cut with
tin-snips), tied it with a discarded wire coat hanger, and thereby created a
cylinder about 8 inches (20 cm) high.  [Therefore, there was some chimney
effect.]  Plenty of air was available through the bar-b-q grill under the
cylinder.Wow, did it burn well!!  All three holes were shooting
flames.  No detectable smoke (the &#8220;eyes and nose&#8221; test).  Sorry, no
photograph yet available.  But it looks like Richard&#8217;s pictures of flames
from a central hole, but this time with 3 holes blazing away.


(RWL):  Q1a.  Could you tell us a
bit about your lighting - from the top or bottom?  
(Either?)

Q1b. 
Easier now to light - with the wrap around "chimney"? 

Q1c.  What happened
after the briquette had pyrolyzed?  Was there a distinct change in power
output?  Would it be feasible to stop the action - or instead increase
air flow?
Second:  That lowly test (plus
my limited experiences making and burning briquettes in my backyard and in
Mozambique) leads me to the following items, each of which needs additional
research:1.  There is a wealth of heat-generating benefits from
having different numbers of holes in the briquettes.2.  They can
be made easily using the same technology as the single-hole ones.  (Ed
Francis and I are working on making the piston / press-plunger for multiple
holes.)    Note:  We can use the same 4-inch (inside
diameter PVC pipe) for the cylinder.3.  The stove needs to
snuggly hold the briquette (to minimize the outside burning, where
temperatures are lower and combustion is less
efficient/effective).

(RWL):   I'd
like to see a test where the fit was not so snug.  I believe there might
be very little (or no) combustion on the outside.   A little extra
air on the outside might provide cleaner burning (especially late in the
process).  How much above the 8" metal cylinder did the flames appear (at
first, at maximum, and at the end)?   Now we are talking about the
emissions from the flame - do you have any access to any emissions monitoring
equipment?  4.  The 4-inch (10 cm) diameter is possibly too
SMALL.  I want to experiment with briquettes that would just fit into a
standard &#8220;number 10 tin&#8221;  (which is American talk for a metal can about 7
inches (18 cm) in diameter and about 8 inches (20 cm) high.
(RWL):  This
may be a bit wider than needed for the test described above - but it certainly
sounds like another good test.   I would also like to see tests of
briquettes (and chimneys) of different heights.  Also replacing the metal
surrounding with ceramics is probably a worthwhile.test to increase
efficiency.
5.  Technically, there is no
requirement that the briquette is round.   Square ones could fit
together better in a larger stove.    Although this is a
relatively minor issue at present, I believe that commercially produced (home
industry) large briquettes might give some significant advantages when placed
in &#8220;better&#8221; (probably larger and more costly) stoves with special
characteristics such as are mentioned in the next item.6.  A
stove (even a small one for a standard-size briquette) could be made in which
the briquette with a &#8220;standardized&#8221; hole configuration would rest on a base
plate that has the desired number of properly spaced 2 or 3 cm holes (for air)
in the plate.  Those holes could be easily closed (use &#8220;plugs&#8221; or
stoppers or sliders of metal?) or opened so that burning could be somewhat
controlled.  For example, ignite 4 holes but later shift back to only 2
or one, or almost none as in the &#8220;slow-combustion stoves&#8221; that I know of from
Brazil and Australia.

(RWL):    All good ideas.  Rotation of one set of holes
past another similar set is another possibility.
7.  Couple all of this with the
varieties of briquette materials (I am thinking of the 40% charcoal &#8220;dust&#8221;
briquettes we are making in Mozambique for experiments) and you could have
some major &#8220;user-control&#8221; of the types of fires available.

(RWL):  Agreed
- I hope you will keep in mind the possibility of producing charcoal at
the same time.  I am concerned you may not be getting very good
combustion in the late stages.So, I will continue to have fun with the
briquettes project.  Your comments will be carefully studied.  
We need LOTS of help and further experimentation of all types in different
settings.
(RWL):  Any
chance of shipping some of these to others?
And to Ron L and others:  Does
anything said above make enough sense to get included into someone&#8217;s grant
proposal for Shell Foundation or other sources?  IF yes, please let me
know.  I would be very interested in being part of a team
effort.
(RWL):  I
still like everything I hear about holes in briquettes.  If the idea is
indeed new and you can prove especially something about lowered emissions, I
presume that the Shell Foundation would find a proposal to be of value. 
Your discussion above talks also about controllability, which is a major
plus.  You and Richard Stanley would seem to have a lead in this type of
research.  Because you have given this suggestion to several hundred
"stoves" list members - maybe they will also be writing you.  Hard to say
which is the best way for those of you who have been promoting "holey"
briquettes - and it depends a lot on what you want to do.  Your
expression of interest is presumably a good first step to finding
partners.  If you don't hear, you presumably have to send in a proposal
yourself.

The Shell Foundation meeting
is on October 11-13, with a report coming out some time thereafter - possibly
with a number of different requests for proposals.  I guess it will be
hard to ask for proposals to be received sooner than December - probably
later.  I think about at least 10 of that group will be reading your
notes - and would like to hear your recommendations (as well as from anyone
else on the "stoves" list).
I am SOOOOOO sorry that I will not be
attending the biomass conference in September in Orlando.  I would learn
a lot and meet many of you.  But I am just an amateur and a true beginner
with this stoves stuff.Having fun !!Paul<FONT
face=Arial size=2>    (RWL):   Glad to
receive your reports and that you are having fun.. 

I have just started reading a
doctoral thesis on pyrolysis (both modeling and experiments) and will send a
report on it soon - that I think will give some other good insights on the
processes you have been investigating.  For instance, surface temperature
is clearly an important property - and shows why an interior hole is so much
better than an exterior wall.

We are mostly amateurs. 
If there were lots of real expertise around (and if the rural stove
problem was an easy one), we would have already heard a lot about "holey"
briquettes and lots of other "perfect" stove topics.  I believe what you
are doing will prove to be a very good lead on making better stoves. 
Hope you can keep it up.

Best of luck and again thanks
for an important report.

Ron


Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice:  309-438-7360; 
FAX:  309-438-5310E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: <A
href="http://www.ilstu.edu/~psanders"
EUDORA="AUTOURL">www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From tombreed at home.com Tue Sep 4 11:44:34 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Briquettes with holes
In-Reply-To: <31ee72c98d.2c98d31ee7@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <017b01c13485$44e77a00$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear Tami:

VERY interesting comments on the coal briquettes from China.

1) Above a few hundred C, radiation is the principal heat transfer
mechanism for pyrolysis/combustion. Every Boy Scout knows you need three
logs (to form a radiation cavity) to start a fire. There is also a sawdust
burner with a hole in the middle that sometimes works.

The holes in your briquettes then provide a radiation trap to keep the heat
in the combustion zone.

A similar principle (radiation trap) explains the extraordinarily high heat
transfer in downdraft gasifiers, the holes being the interstices between the
particles where tar combustion occurs.

2) Ice cubes and black powder often have holes in the middle. As a cube
melts it gets smaller, so there is less surface exposed and less cooling of
the drink. If there is a hole in the middle the inside surface expands, so
total surface is approximately constant. Same principle for explosives to
propel shells from a cannon. MAYBE similar principle in holy briquettes.
Paul Anderson has been pioneering holey biomass briquettes in Mozambique
here recently. Comments?

Yours truly, TOM REED
Dr. Thomas Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558;
tombreed@home.com; www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tami Bond" <Tami.Bond@noaa.gov>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Briquettes with holes

> Dear Stovers,
>
> Hi, I'm Tami Bond, a quiet member of this list for some time now. I do
> emissions testing when I can drag myself away from my other projects,
> and from listening to stove-talk. I'm new, and learning.
>
> I have watched the discussion on holey briquettes. While I have no
> experience with the biomass briquettes, I have tested the holey
> honeycombs (Coal) that are used in China. Pretty darn good in terms of
> particulate emissions. They do make really small particles (<50 nm, you
> can't see 'em) but the magnitude is much smaller than that from raw
> coal-- like two orders of magnitude fewer particles.
>
> From my observation the combustion is stabilized by the radiant
> feedback within the hole. The honeycomb briquettes are fairly dense,
> with low volatile content (and very hard to light). Keeping combustion
> going requires maintaining sufficient heat for reaction. This is a
> competition between the heat generated by oxidation and heat drawn away
> by conduction into the briquette. Up to a point, I would guess that
> with more holes, (a) more heat is generated, (b) the briquette is
> warmer inside, (c) the heat transfer from the surface to the interior
> of the briquette is lower, since heat transfer is proportional to the
> temperature difference. So more heat stays at the surface to maintain
> reaction. Even after my briquettes are burning well there is not much
> combustion around the outside.
>
> It is hard to stop these coal briquettes from burning once you have
> started them. This would be a disadvantage to making a larger
> briquette. I have heard that in China, people just cover the stove
> inlet to slow the combustion down. The homeowners tend to use about 4"
> briquettes and the larger ones I have tested (6") are used by street
> vendors. The biomass briquettes may perform entirely differently.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Tami
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Tue Sep 4 11:49:41 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
Message-ID: <31ee72c98d.2c98d31ee7@pmel.noaa.gov>

Dear Stovers,

Hi, I'm Tami Bond, a quiet member of this list for some time now. I do
emissions testing when I can drag myself away from my other projects,
and from listening to stove-talk. I'm new, and learning.

I have watched the discussion on holey briquettes. While I have no
experience with the biomass briquettes, I have tested the holey
honeycombs (Coal) that are used in China. Pretty darn good in terms of
particulate emissions. They do make really small particles (<50 nm, you
can't see 'em) but the magnitude is much smaller than that from raw
coal-- like two orders of magnitude fewer particles.

 

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Tue Sep 4 12:11:59 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
Message-ID: <2dd6331301.313012dd63@pmel.noaa.gov>

Hi Ron,

Brief description of what I do and why:

NOAA, among others in climate research, is interested in the properties
of particles in the atmosphere, because these particles can change the
radiation budget in several ways. Two examples are the direct
scattering and absorption of sunlight, and adding particles that can
cause cloud droplets to form. NOAA does not have a program in stove
research. They are supporting my post-doc position because they
believed my proposal, that understanding the characteristics of
particles at the combustion source will help them understand the
particles in the atmosphere. I have another year to prove my point--

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Tue Sep 4 12:14:41 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
Message-ID: <2f1b032ce1.32ce12f1b0@pmel.noaa.gov>

Hi Ron,

(Last message got cut off. I'll try again...)

Brief description of what I do and why:

NOAA, among others in climate research, is interested in the properties
of particles in the atmosphere, because these particles can change the
radiation budget in several ways. Two examples are the direct
scattering and absorption of sunlight, and adding particles that can
cause cloud droplets to form. NOAA does not have a program in stove
research. They are supporting my post-doc position because they
believed my proposal, that understanding the characteristics of
particles at the combustion source will help them understand the
particles in the atmosphere. I have another year to prove my point--
and, I hope, to do something useful for Stovers along the way. The Coal
and Briquette measurements I'll talk about below were done for Ph.D.,
when I also measured a few other things... a stoker, a boiler and some
engines.

Before I start the Briquette discussion I should say that I believe
briquette quality varies very much, depending on the coal used to make
it (of course), the fineness of the ground particles, the binder, and
the mixing goodness. I have heard higher emission factors from other
briquettes in China, which were relayed to me by a Chinese colleague. I
also believe that a biomass briquette would be far different due to its
higher volatile content; I only mentioned the coal briquette as
comparison with biomass in my earlier message because I thought the
heat transfer might be similar.

As I have said in several private mails to stovers, please understand
that I am just a beginner and have a lot to learn! So comments about
where I have gone wrong, what information sources I have missed, and
what I can do to help... are most welcome.

> RWL: 1. Can you give us the emissions characteristics in
> quantitativeterms? Can you compare with other stoves or
> combustion processes.

At this point, I can compare briquette emissions with burning raw
bituminous coal. That is not a good comparison, because my
understanding is that these briquettes are made from anthracite. I am
waiting on a shipment right now, which I hope contains some raw coal
from Yunnan province and briquettes made from the same coal. That will
be a better test. Raw bituminous is probably the most polluting coal
there is-- anyone have other opinions?

To be more precise than my earlier message: I measured
- light absorption, similar to Bacharach smoke meter but directly
calibrated to an optical measurement
- light scattering, which for small particles is fairly proportional to
mass
- size distribution & number count

Briquette Bituminous
Absorption m2/kg fuel 0.16 48
Scattering m2/kg fuel 0.10 29
Particles / kg fuel 2.7x10^15 14x10^15

If you want to understand the m2/kg fuel and don't, e-mail me
privately; otherwise just take it as a relative measure. I couldn't
ever get enough mass to weigh from the briquette, to get a mass
emission factor (even when I ran a 22-hour sample!)

> 2. How about carbon monoxide emission measurements or any other
> emissions for these coal briquettes?

Wish I had done that, but didn't. That was a mistake. When I started
doing these measurements I didn't realize how little was known about
stove emissions. I thought I was just refining emission factors that
were already known, to examine the optical properties. Now that I have
the chance to continue a little, I hope to add some gas-phase
measurements. What would *you* suggest?

> 3. Kirk Smith's paper mentioning the holey coal briquettes
> seemed to imply a cancer link. Can you explain that?

Can you tell me which paper? I have a few of his, but can't remember
the holey-coal discussion. Again, the briquettes I have may not be
representative of the average. I may have more thoughts after I read
his paper.

> 4. What explanation do you have for so many fewer particles
> from the briquettes? (Does the size distribution change as well?)

(1) The only paper I've been able to find that discussed briquette
combustion is an "Open File" report from USGS, and that's not about
Asian briquettes. According to that paper, the clay binder actually
takes up the volatile matter as it is released by the fuel, either
catalyzing the combustion or at least causing it to burn
heterogeneously.

(2) Yes, the size distribution does change. The particles from the
briquettes are quite small. My sizing equipment measures down to 20 nm
diameter and the peak in the number distribution appears to be below
that. That size looks like a vaporization/condensation reaction. The
bituminous coal makes a standard, sort-of-lognormal size distribution
with number maximum around 80 nm-- which could be standard soot
formation and growth by coagulation.

"Soot" comes from volatile matter burned in the gas phase. I'm guessing
that either the low volatile content of the original coal, or the
binder, or both, suppresses the soot formation. (Is that noncommittal
enough?)

> 5. I have had the impression that there was considerable
> smokiness in the urban areas becaue of the use of these briquettes -
> can you characterizethe briquettes in terms of smoke? Does the smoke
> change during a burn?

I thought that too. Imagine my delight when I received the coal--
emissions at last!-- and subsequent consternation when NO smoke
resulted! Perhaps "they" only sent me the "good" briquettes? There is
another type of briquettes, also, called "ball coal". These may have
different emissions (and I hope that they, too, are in my coming
shipment).

Another question I have-- which I never did see mentioned on Shell-- is
that there are probably substantial particulate emissions from the food
itself, if one cooks with oil or fries meat. Does anyone have
experience with this?

Anyway, since there wasn't much smoke to see from the briquettes, the
signal-to-noise ratio was too low to see statistically valid
differences between burn conditions. The smoke from bituminous coal
does change during the burn, very nicely. I have real-time measurements
to show it, and will send you the paper if you're interested.

Answers below based on very small sample (three) of interviews with
Chinese folks-- therefore, probably unrepresentative.

> 1. How do you and the Chinese users start these briquettes?

The Chinese use LOTS of wood to start them up, and then they don't let
them go out. They are HARD to light... even acetylene torch doesn't
work; the heat is just drawn away too fast!

I use barbecue briquettes to start them, which is not representative of
practice, but it's otherwise impossible to separate the wood emissions
from the briquette emissions. Kirk Smith pointed out that a proper view
of the system would include the kindling; of course he's right, if one
wants to examine relative merits of fuels.

> 2. Have you seen any computer models for the combustion
> process (that would show the impact of hole size, briquette
> thickness, moisture content,etc)?

No, but I'll post a link as soon as I find one. (Wishful thinking!)

> 3. How many briquettes are typically burned at one time?

One new one for each meal. Three fit in the combustor in a stack. After
the meal, they are left in the stove with inlet closed off (can be used
to heat tea water). At next mealtime, the retained heat is used to
light the new briquette. Bottom briquette--mostly ash now-- is pushed
through the grate; new briquette is put on top; fan is used to perk up
the remainder of the other two old briquettes to light the top new one.
The briquettes are typically burned in a cylindrical clay stove. I'm
wondering if Dean's insulative brick wouldn't be better.

> 4. Is there some statistic like watts per hole? What is
> typical time for consumption of one briquette?

I have no idea about statistics; sorry. At full combustion rate the
briquettes can burn out in ~1.5 hours or so. I didn't run them at full
tilt. I didn't do the Water Boiling Test either, but followed instead
what my interviewees said was typical use pattern. I had to use the
street-vendor size (6") because that's what I was able to get.

> 5. What is the typical briquette thickness?
7.5 cm

> 6. What price (and is this subsidized)? Sold by the piece or
> per kg?
Sold by the piece. I got 20 of them for less than 6 yuan (75 cents?)--
that is, roughly 5 cents apiece. I have no idea if it's subsidized.

> 7. What binder?
Clay, I have heard. But, strangely: A proximate analysis said about 25%
ash. But after combustion, less than 5% of the total mass remained!
Where did the rest of the "ash" go? This is an open question, in my
opinion. It must have escaped as a gas?

> (RWL):
> 1. Do you know of any publications in English on these briquette
> characteristics? How long have they been in use?

No, I don't, but again will let you know if I run into something. It's
my understanding that the Chinese pioneered this technology. One of my
(many) failings is that I do not read Chinese (yet).

> 2. Have you seen the photographs given by Richard Stanley -
> and is the combustion similar? (my guess is that it must be
> less intense because one is dealing with surface combustion rather
> thancombustion of pyrolysis gases - true?)

Exactly right. I never got a red flame out of these briquettes. Blue at
the beginning, then transitioning to milky white and finally just
glowing at the end. I did get a flame-- it wasn't just surface
combustion, but it must have been created by some very light gases that
wouldn't soot.

> 3. In your work, are you able to control the air flow?

In the measurements I discussed, the air flow was only crudely
controlled-- like what the locals would do, covering up the combustor
inlet to slow combustion. I am hatching plans for better-controlled
combustion (more on that privately, if you're interested). It's hard to
control the air flow when using a 'representative' combustor, and that
was the goal of the first experiments.

> 4. How many holes for both the 4" and 6" sizes? What
> diameter holes?

I don't know about the 4" size because I haven't seen it. The 6" have
~15 holes of 1.25 cm diameter each. (Sorry for mixing units)

> 5. Charcoal extinguishes itself quite quickly in the absence
> of air (when put into a sealed can) - would the same be true for a
> coal briquette?

One would think so. I never tried that because, like I said, the
practice is generally that once started, you try *not* to let them go
out.

> Tami - Thanks very much for giving us these insights. Sorry for
> dumping all these new questions on you,

Really, I have learned so much here and from Shell, that it is my
pleasure to return the favor in any small way I can. And please feel
free to tell me if I need to clarify anything I have said. I know that
not everyone here is a 'techie'; in fact, that is one of the delights
of this list.

Sincerely yours,

Tami

 

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From tombreed at home.com Tue Sep 4 12:34:38 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Radiation trapping in holes...
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010902130552.01a29580@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <01e101c13487$ef3a76e0$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

 

Dear Paul, Tami, Ron and all:

See earlier note on radiation trapping by holes in
briquettes.

We need to get the coal briquette people together with the
biomass briquette people to see what they have in common and what's
different...

TOM REED



Dr. Thomas Reed 
The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401303
278 0558; tombreed@home.com; <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Ron
Larson
To: <A title=psanders@ilstu.edu
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">Paul S. Anderson ; <A
title=ajmalawene01@hotmail.com
href="mailto:ajmalawene01@hotmail.com">Apolinário J Malawene ; <A
title=bobkarlaweldon@cs.com href="mailto:bobkarlaweldon@cs.com">Bob and Karla
Weldon ; Ed
Francis ; <A title=rstanley@legacyfound.org
href="mailto:rstanley@legacyfound.org">Richard Stanley ; <A
title=rwalt@gocpc.com href="mailto:rwalt@gocpc.com">Robb Walt ; <A
title=stoves@crest.org href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org ;
<A title=tombreed@home.com
href="mailto:tombreed@home.com">tombreed@home.com ; <A
title=ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz
href="mailto:ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz">Tsamba--Alberto Julio ; <A
title=clucas33@yahoo.com
href="mailto:clucas33@yahoo.com">clucas33@yahoo.com ; <A
title=clucas@zebra.uem.mz
href="mailto:clucas@zebra.uem.mz">clucas@zebra.uem.mz
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 8:05
PM
Subject: Re: Briquettes with holes

Hi Paul - 

Thanks for your report. 
See some notes and questions below.
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Paul S.
Anderson
To: <A title=ajmalawene01@hotmail.com
href="mailto:ajmalawene01@hotmail.com">Apolinário J Malawene ; <A
title=bobkarlaweldon@cs.com href="mailto:bobkarlaweldon@cs.com">Bob and
Karla Weldon ; <A title=cfranc@ilstu.edu
href="mailto:cfranc@ilstu.edu">Ed Francis ; <A
title=rstanley@legacyfound.org
href="mailto:rstanley@legacyfound.org">Richard Stanley ; <A
title=rwalt@gocpc.com href="mailto:rwalt@gocpc.com">Robb Walt ; <A
title=stoves@crest.org href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org ;
<A title=TOMBREED@HOME.COM
href="mailto:TOMBREED@HOME.COM">TOMBREED@HOME.COM ; <A
title=ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz
href="mailto:ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz">Tsamba--Alberto Julio ; <A
title=clucas33@yahoo.com
href="mailto:clucas33@yahoo.com">clucas33@yahoo.com ; <A
title=clucas@zebra.uem.mz
href="mailto:clucas@zebra.uem.mz">clucas@zebra.uem.mz
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 12:07
PM
Subject: Briquettes with holes

Briquettes with holesDear Stovers
and Friends,My goodness, we all have been quiet for the past
weeks.Here is a summary of my current efforts and
thoughts:One issue is the holes in the briquettes.  I wanted to
test having multiple (3 or 4) holes in the standard briquettes advocated by
Richard Stanley and the Legacy Foundation, of which I am a believer and
advocate.I took an existing 4 inch (10 cm) diameter (and about 5
inches 13 cm high) recycled biomass briquette that had one hole.  I
plugged the center hole (not very well, but sufficient) with the same
materials that I cut out of the briquette when I DRILLED three holes down
through the diameter-side.  The drill bit said 5/8<FONT
face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>th<FONT
face="Arial, Helvetica"> inch (about 1.5 cm), being slightly smaller than
the standard center-hole in Richard&#8217;s briquettes.
After some &#8220;playing around&#8221;, I
wrapped the briquette fairly tightly in a piece of thin sheet metal (easily
cut with tin-snips), tied it with a discarded wire coat hanger, and thereby
created a cylinder about 8 inches (20 cm) high.  [Therefore, there was
some chimney effect.]  Plenty of air was available through the bar-b-q
grill under the cylinder.Wow, did it burn well!!  All three
holes were shooting flames.  No detectable smoke (the &#8220;eyes and nose&#8221;
test).  Sorry, no photograph yet available.  But it looks like
Richard&#8217;s pictures of flames from a central hole, but this time with 3 holes
blazing away.


(RWL):  Q1a.  Could you tell us
a bit about your lighting - from the top or bottom?  
(Either?)

Q1b. 
Easier now to light - with the wrap around "chimney"? 

Q1c.  What
happened after the briquette had pyrolyzed?  Was there a distinct
change in power output?  Would it be feasible to stop the action - or
instead increase air flow?
Second:  That lowly test
(plus my limited experiences making and burning briquettes in my backyard
and in Mozambique) leads me to the following items, each of which needs
additional research:1.  There is a wealth of heat-generating
benefits from having different numbers of holes in the
briquettes.2.  They can be made easily using the same
technology as the single-hole ones.  (Ed Francis and I are working on
making the piston / press-plunger for multiple holes.)   
Note:  We can use the same 4-inch (inside diameter PVC pipe) for the
cylinder.3.  The stove needs to snuggly hold the briquette (to
minimize the outside burning, where temperatures are lower and combustion is
less efficient/effective).

(RWL):   I'd
like to see a test where the fit was not so snug.  I believe there
might be very little (or no) combustion on the outside.   A little
extra air on the outside might provide cleaner burning (especially late in
the process).  How much above the 8" metal cylinder did the flames
appear (at first, at maximum, and at the end)?   Now we are
talking about the emissions from the flame - do you have any access to any
emissions monitoring equipment?  4.  The 4-inch (10 cm)
diameter is possibly too SMALL.  I want to experiment with briquettes
that would just fit into a standard &#8220;number 10 tin&#8221;  (which is American
talk for a metal can about 7 inches (18 cm) in diameter and about 8 inches
(20 cm) high.
(RWL): 
This may be a bit wider than needed for the test described above - but it
certainly sounds like another good test.   I would also like to
see tests of briquettes (and chimneys) of different heights.  Also
replacing the metal surrounding with ceramics is probably a worthwhile.test
to increase efficiency.
5.  Technically, there is no
requirement that the briquette is round.   Square ones could fit
together better in a larger stove.    Although this is a
relatively minor issue at present, I believe that commercially produced
(home industry) large briquettes might give some significant advantages when
placed in &#8220;better&#8221; (probably larger and more costly) stoves with special
characteristics such as are mentioned in the next item.6.  A
stove (even a small one for a standard-size briquette) could be made in
which the briquette with a &#8220;standardized&#8221; hole configuration would rest on a
base plate that has the desired number of properly spaced 2 or 3 cm holes
(for air) in the plate.  Those holes could be easily closed (use
&#8220;plugs&#8221; or stoppers or sliders of metal?) or opened so that burning could be
somewhat controlled.  For example, ignite 4 holes but later shift back
to only 2 or one, or almost none as in the &#8220;slow-combustion stoves&#8221; that I
know of from Brazil and Australia.

(RWL):    All good ideas.  Rotation of one set of holes
past another similar set is another possibility.
7.  Couple all of this with the
varieties of briquette materials (I am thinking of the 40% charcoal &#8220;dust&#8221;
briquettes we are making in Mozambique for experiments) and you could have
some major &#8220;user-control&#8221; of the types of fires available.

(RWL):  Agreed
- I hope you will keep in mind the possibility of producing charcoal at
the same time.  I am concerned you may not be getting very good
combustion in the late stages.So, I will continue to have fun with
the briquettes project.  Your comments will be carefully
studied.   We need LOTS of help and further experimentation of all
types in different settings.
(RWL): 
Any chance of shipping some of these to others?
And to Ron L and others:  Does
anything said above make enough sense to get included into someone&#8217;s grant
proposal for Shell Foundation or other sources?  IF yes, please let me
know.  I would be very interested in being part of a team
effort.
(RWL):  I
still like everything I hear about holes in briquettes.  If the idea is
indeed new and you can prove especially something about lowered emissions, I
presume that the Shell Foundation would find a proposal to be of
value.  Your discussion above talks also about controllability, which
is a major plus.  You and Richard Stanley would seem to have a lead in
this type of research.  Because you have given this suggestion to
several hundred "stoves" list members - maybe they will also be writing
you.  Hard to say which is the best way for those of you who have been
promoting "holey" briquettes - and it depends a lot on what you want to
do.  Your expression of interest is presumably a good first step to
finding partners.  If you don't hear, you presumably have to send in a
proposal yourself.

The Shell Foundation meeting
is on October 11-13, with a report coming out some time thereafter -
possibly with a number of different requests for proposals.  I guess it
will be hard to ask for proposals to be received sooner than December -
probably later.  I think about at least 10 of that group will be
reading your notes - and would like to hear your recommendations (as well as
from anyone else on the "stoves" list).
I am SOOOOOO sorry that I will not be
attending the biomass conference in September in Orlando.  I would
learn a lot and meet many of you.  But I am just an amateur and a true
beginner with this stoves stuff.Having fun
!!Paul   
(RWL):   Glad to receive your reports and that you are having
fun.. 

I have just started reading
a doctoral thesis on pyrolysis (both modeling and experiments) and will send
a report on it soon - that I think will give some other good insights on the
processes you have been investigating.  For instance, surface
temperature is clearly an important property - and shows why an interior
hole is so much better than an exterior wall.

We are mostly
amateurs.  If there were lots of real expertise around (and if the
rural stove problem was an easy one), we would have already heard a lot
about "holey" briquettes and lots of other "perfect" stove topics.  I
believe what you are doing will prove to be a very good lead on making
better stoves.  Hope you can keep it up.

Best of luck and again
thanks for an important report.

Ron


Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice: 
309-438-7360;  FAX:  309-438-5310E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu
- Internet items: <A href="http://www.ilstu.edu/~psanders"
EUDORA="AUTOURL">www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Tue Sep 4 12:48:47 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
In-Reply-To: <31ee72c98d.2c98d31ee7@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <001801c1348f$8ce26720$15b46441@computer>

Tami:

Thanks for your note below - to which I have inserted a few questions.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Tami Bond <Tami.Bond@noaa.gov>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Briquettes with holes

> Dear Stovers,
>
> Hi, I'm Tami Bond, a quiet member of this list for some time now. I do
> emissions testing when I can drag myself away from my other projects,
> and from listening to stove-talk. I'm new, and learning.
>
> I have watched the discussion on holey briquettes. While I have no
> experience with the biomass briquettes, I have tested the holey
> honeycombs (Coal) that are used in China. Pretty darn good in terms of
> particulate emissions. They do make really small particles (<50 nm, you
> can't see 'em) but the magnitude is much smaller than that from raw
> coal-- like two orders of magnitude fewer particles.
>
RWL: 1. Can you give us the emissions characteristics in quantitative
terms? Can you compare with other stoves or combustion processes.
2. How about carbon monoxide emission measurements or any other
emissions for these coal briquettes?
3. Kirk Smith's paper mentioning the holey coal briquettes seemed to
imply a cancer link. Can you explain that?
4. What explanation do you have for so many fewer particles from the
briquettes? (Does the size distribution change as well?)
5. I have had the impression that there was considerable smokiness in
the urban areas becaue of the use of these briquettes - can you characterize
the briquettes in terms of smoke? Does the smoke change during a burn?

> From my observation the combustion is stabilized by the radiant
> feedback within the hole. The honeycomb briquettes are fairly dense,
> with low volatile content (and very hard to light). Keeping combustion
> going requires maintaining sufficient heat for reaction. This is a
> competition between the heat generated by oxidation and heat drawn away
> by conduction into the briquette. Up to a point, I would guess that
> with more holes, (a) more heat is generated, (b) the briquette is
> warmer inside, (c) the heat transfer from the surface to the interior
> of the briquette is lower, since heat transfer is proportional to the
> temperature difference. So more heat stays at the surface to maintain
> reaction. Even after my briquettes are burning well there is not much
> combustion around the outside.
>
RWL: I think you are exactly right in your explanations. Apparently
with biomass pyrolysis, there is a sizeable energy loss from the surface
caused by the exiting gases - that you have much less of.

1. How do you and the Chinese users start these briquettes?
2. Have you seen any computer models for the combustion process (that
would show the impact of hole size, briquette thickness, moisture content,
etc)?
3. How many briquettes are typically burned at one time?
4. Is there some statistic like watts per hole? What is typical time
for consumption of one briquette?
5. What is the typical briquette thickness?
6. What price (and is this subsidized)? Sold by the piece or per kg?
7. What binder?

> It is hard to stop these coal briquettes from burning once you have
> started them. This would be a disadvantage to making a larger
> briquette. I have heard that in China, people just cover the stove
> inlet to slow the combustion down. The homeowners tend to use about 4"
> briquettes and the larger ones I have tested (6") are used by street
> vendors. The biomass briquettes may perform entirely differently.
>
(RWL):
1. Do you know of any publications in English on these briquette
characteristics? How long have they been in use?
2. Have you seen the photographs given by Richard Stanley - and is the
combustion similar? (my guess is that it must be
less intense because one is dealing with surface combustion rather than
combustion of pyrolysis gases - true?)
3. In your work, are you able to control the air flow?
4. How many holes for both the 4" and 6" sizes? What diameter holes?
5. Charcoal extinguishes itself quite quickly in the absence of air
(when put into a sealed can) - would the same be true for a coal briquette?

> Sincerely yours,
>
> Tami
>
<snip>

Tami - Thanks very much for giving us these insights. Sorry for
dumping all these new questions on you, but you have a rare insight that
will undoubtedly help Richard Stanley, Paul Anderson, and others with their
work - as well as possibly influencing the forthcoming Shell Foundation
dialogs.

If I haven't gotten in the right questions, please feel free to direct
us to a report or paper - or to answer the right questions. Please also
feel free to tell us more about the work of NOAA on this and similar topics.

Ron

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Tue Sep 4 13:46:48 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010902130552.01a29580@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <3B9431BF.90346C1D@legacyfound.org>

 
Paul:
Great stuff . We tried similar experiments in 1994 but found it too
hard for the producers to get the material into a multi holed mold
/die configuration???in a regular basis??and they were very good at
molding three plus briquettes per minute with the single hole
whereas they could not get to half this amount with the multi hole
configuration . Admittedly this is with the veryt basic and very
replicable and rugged batch fed press you are now using.
Ref size, the briquette project began with godfather Ben Bryant's experiments
on 6" dia. briquettes with single 2" dia. holes. The
problem we had in Malawi with this size was that they were to large
for the home cook stove in Malawi - and this was pretty much
our target development market for the project. Sure more holes and
a tighter side works well but if your goal is to produce briquettes
in a microenterprize setting you have to really think about practicality
in a production setting. We had tried a hexagonal configuration
of holes about the center but this forced exact alignment to the piston
and a relatively more fluid mixture to assure even distribution.
Additionally we usually make two a t a time so the dividing plate inserted
after one charge is added would as well have to fit exactly.
That is lots harder to accomplish with traditional folks and low tolerances
six months after you are gone from the scene, than it may
seem. I recognize that the Chinese holey briquettes made largely from
charcoal fines are multi-holed but they are as well made with
fabricated steel machinery where tolerances are controlled much more
tightly. Others, still, inject the charge to a continuous feed
press where one can maintain some degree of control on the position
of the guide rods (the guide rods generally being rigidly
attached to the piston).

As to square or hexagonal or triangular shapes sure they would all work
. We have just stuck with the round shape because 1) it
burns more evenly and 2) most village household stoves are round not
square. There is no other reason I know of that one could not
make them any shape one desired.
Interesting double bind approach to the validation of the effect of
single or multiple holes   is to bore a single or multiple hole
(s)
through a lathe-turned chunk of wood and compare that burn to same
chunk without the hole(s). This rather nicely sews up the
rationale for at least one hole, in that the material would be a constant
and the only real variable would be the hole, single or
whatever configuration you choose. (My results are quite evident that
the hole had a dramatic effect. I did not get numbers on the
experiment as at the time I was simply trying to justify to myself
the entry into holey briquettes and was far more concerned with
adaptability of the resource to micro enterprise based production for
rural energy needs.
We are indeed trying to approach Shell foundation for funding for extension
of the technology through a training and R&D center in
the developing nations and for development of a higher volume production
device for global application. You could join in as one to
experiment with burning aspects and a field site in Mozambique with
which to apply it.
I open this offer to anyone of us on the list. We may well derive a
better briquette and possibly stove, as one part of the proposal, but I
would ask that we all think about application. Those of us out with development
project management experience need to  be involved to make the technology
have impact. Lets put our heads together for a set of simultaneous and
well monitored and documented pilot projects over a broad area . Our friends
as producers and trainers  in Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Haiti,  in
West Africa and Haiti and shortly in southern Mexico/ Northern Guatemala.
Lets engage them in training trainers in related areas where possible,
such that, as experiments on the optimum number of holes or briquette size
are concluded, we would have a full cadre of persons familiar with the
basic process and able to readily produce the briquettes, (guiding the
rest of us as they go).
Hope to see as many of you as possible at  the biomass conference
where we will make a few on the basic mini press during the talk.
Wholesomely yours,
Richard Stanley



"Paul S. Anderson" wrote:
Briquettes with holes
Dear Stovers and Friends,
My goodness, we all have been quiet for
the past weeks.
Here is a summary of my current efforts
and thoughts:
One issue is the holes in the briquettes. 
I wanted to test having multiple (3 or 4) holes in the standard briquettes
advocated by Richard Stanley and the Legacy Foundation, of which I am a
believer and advocate.
I took an existing 4 inch (10 cm) diameter
(and about 5 inches 13 cm high) recycled biomass briquette that had one
hole.  I plugged the center hole (not very well, but sufficient) with
the same materials that I cut out of the briquette when I DRILLED three
holes down through the diameter-side.  The drill bit said 5/8th
inch (about 1.5 cm), being slightly smaller than the standard center-hole
in Richard’s briquettes.
After some “playing around”, I wrapped
the briquette fairly tightly in a piece of thin sheet metal (easily cut
with tin-snips), tied it with a discarded wire coat hanger, and thereby
created a cylinder about 8 inches (20 cm) high.  [Therefore, there
was some chimney effect.]  Plenty of air was available through the
bar-b-q grill under the cylinder.
Wow, did it burn well!!  All three
holes were shooting flames.  No detectable smoke (the “eyes and nose”
test).  Sorry, no photograph yet available.  But it looks like
Richard’s pictures of flames from a central hole, but this time with 3
holes blazing away.
Second:  That lowly test (plus my
limited experiences making and burning briquettes in my backyard and in
Mozambique) leads me to the following items, each of which needs additional
research:
1.  There is a wealth of heat-generating
benefits from having different numbers of holes in the briquettes.
2.  They can be made easily using
the same technology as the single-hole ones.  (Ed Francis and I are
working on making the piston / press-plunger for multiple holes.)   
Note:  We can use the same 4-inch (inside diameter PVC pipe) for the
cylinder.
3.  The stove needs to snuggly hold
the briquette (to minimize the outside burning, where temperatures are
lower and combustion is less efficient/effective).
4.  The 4-inch (10 cm) diameter is
possibly too SMALL.  I want to experiment with briquettes that would
just fit into a standard “number 10 tin”  (which is American talk
for a metal can about 7 inches (18 cm) in diameter and about 8 inches (20
cm) high.
5.  Technically, there is no requirement
that the briquette is round.   Square ones could fit together
better in a larger stove.    Although this is a relatively
minor issue at present, I believe that commercially produced (home industry)
large briquettes might give some significant advantages when placed in
“better” (probably larger and more costly) stoves with special characteristics
such as are mentioned in the next item.
6.  A stove (even a small one for
a standard-size briquette) could be made in which the briquette with a
“standardized” hole configuration would rest on a base plate that has the
desired number of properly spaced 2 or 3 cm holes (for air) in the plate. 
Those holes could be easily closed (use “plugs” or stoppers or sliders
of metal?) or opened so that burning could be somewhat controlled. 
For example, ignite 4 holes but later shift back to only 2 or one, or almost
none as in the “slow-combustion stoves” that I know of from Brazil and
Australia.
7.  Couple all of this with the varieties
of briquette materials (I am thinking of the 40% charcoal “dust” briquettes
we are making in Mozambique for experiments) and you could have some major
“user-control” of the types of fires available.
So, I will continue to have fun with the
briquettes project.  Your comments will be carefully studied.  
We need LOTS of help and further experimentation of all types in different
settings.
And to Ron L and others:  Does anything
said above make enough sense to get included into someone’s grant proposal
for Shell Foundation or other sources?  IF yes, please let me know. 
I would be very interested in being part of a team effort.
I am SOOOOOO sorry that I will not be
attending the biomass conference in September in Orlando.  I would
learn a lot and meet many of you.  But I am just an amateur and a
true beginner with this stoves stuff.
Having fun !!
Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique
8/99 - 7/00Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State UniversityNormal,
IL  61790-4400   Voice:  309-438-7360;  FAX: 
309-438-5310E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Tue Sep 4 15:01:57 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Help me with a Question--PLEASE (on charcoal combustors)
In-Reply-To: <2195-3B92EBB1-782@storefull-211.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Message-ID: <023e01c13423$6d56f680$a1b16441@computer>

Nadine:

Wo, you are fast!. Thanks for the information on the 1965 Barbecue
book - maybe I can find it.
Good luck

With the lava rocks, there could be adequate air flow up from below.
Then it would be interesting to try some experiments with holes in the inner
foil.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "nay" <NB-1@webtv.net>
To: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Help me with a Question--PLEASE (on charcoal combustors)

>
> Ron, thank you so much on your timely response. I'm going to give this
> method a try
> using the Lava Rocks. I'll keep you informed on how it turns out---or
> just look at your major news network---and if you here of an explosion
> in NY----you know it was Nay.
>
> Better Homes & Gardens
> Barbecue Book
>
> Meredith Press
> New York---Des Moines
> Meredith Publishing Co
> 1965
>
> This book also has info on
> Smokers, outdoor Stoves
> just alot of stuff to do with
> Fire, radiant Heat & outdoor cooking
> how people cooked in the 17-1800'S
>
> Thanks again
> ...................Nadine
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Sep 4 15:13:45 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010902130552.01a29580@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010904140044.01a2d8e0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Reply is below RE:

At 06:43 PM 9/3/01 -0700, Richard Stanley wrote:
>
>Paul:
>
>Great stuff . We tried similar experiments in 1994 but found it too hard
>for the producers to get the material into a multi holed mold
>/die configuration???in a regular basis??

Richard and Stovers,

Thanks for the reply (and I also saw the extra paragraph on the message to
the Stoves listserv.)

I suspected that you had made multiple-hole briquettes before. And I
expect to encounter similar problems of production.

I and my Mozambican co-workers would welcome any role in proposed research
and development grants, etc., with you, and with others where appropriate.

I re-emphasize that micro-industry and business development for local
people is NOT my primary focus. I think that production for
self-consumption (and sell any surplus?) is a useful approach where
millions are unemployed or under-employed. So "speed" or efficiency of
production are of only minor interest to me.

To answer Ron's and Tami's messages, I do not have any means of accurate
testing, but as issues develop I will seek such expertise in central
Illinois and in Mozambique (probably with Carlos at the Engineering Dept
at Univ. Eduardo Mondlane.)

Is there a picture (or good description) of the China (or elsewhere)
briquettes / coal with holes? Size and position of holes, etc.

Tom Reed mentioned Boy Scouts and the "radiation cavity" or "radiation
capture". In my recent (1990s) scouting, those principles were not
mentioned nor even hinted. Just make a fire, and it must get hot enough
to burn.

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Sep 4 16:53:27 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
In-Reply-To: <2f1b032ce1.32ce12f1b0@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010904150320.01a3a550@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

Tami's latest message was filled with great info. Here are some
observations (I hope I get this right.) (I love the metric system, but
this time I use English measures.)

1. coal briquette with holes (China): 3 inch high, 6 inch diameter (about
28 square inches surface), 15 holes each about 5/8th inch diameter ( about
4.6 sq inches of holes total), hard anthracite coal, very hard to ignite
initially, burns 1.5 hours at full burn, burn one during cooking, then cut
back air to hold the stove unit hot until next meal when add one more
briquette, used in a cylindrical stove that holds 3 briquettes (3x3 inches
high = 9 inch height), but only really burning one at a time thereby having
about 5 - 6 inches of chimney effect, burns very hot and without flame, and
low noxious emissions; briquette is industrially produced and marketed at
prices of about 5 cents US each (maybe is subsidized), which is 15 cents
per day times 30 = US$4.50 per month or $54 per year.)

2. In my humble opinion, although this technology seems to work for China,
I feel it is not likely to be of much application in Africa, Latin America,
or southern Asia, at least not in the near or mid-future.

3. We have the basis for someone's thesis/dissertation: The relationships
(plural) between hard-to-start long-burning (hours and whole days)
industrally-processed briquettes (mainly coal) verses easy-to-start,
short-duration (30 minutes and can add more) personally-made briquettes
(mainly biomass). And there are probably intermediate "products" in some
continuum.

4. And foundations like Shell would do well to support numerous thesis
studies to be conducted in the universities in the Developing Countries.

5. But I personally must go back to the point of view well expressed by
Richard: We need to keep our focus on applications that can be accepted
into the lifestyles of the resource-poor people who could benefit from
these innovations.

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From lanny at roman.net Tue Sep 4 22:39:07 2001
From: lanny at roman.net (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Lanny's Stove Project
In-Reply-To: <007901c12506$265942a0$1dba3cd0@default>
Message-ID: <014801c135b3$4d9ae720$37ba3cd0@default>

 

Ron and Stovers,
Ron, thank you for the excellent answers about the CO and wood gas. Your
information will be helpful with my next prototype. I hope I did not cost you
too much time with my elementary questions.

My goal with this stove project is to design practical stoves for use by
people in developing countries.
A practical stove for this application as I see it now should:
Burn clean and possibly be vented because of IAP (indoor air pollution).
Be user-friendly, light quickly and burn steadily for an hour with little
attention.
Be a design that can be built with inexpensive and/or local materials and
local labor.
Be flexible in the biomass fuels that it will burn, including densified and
undensified bulky biomass like sawdust.
Be a flexible burner design that will adapt to a flat griddle, pot, oven or
grill.
Be fuel-efficient.
The rocket stove with its clean combustion looks efficient and simple to
build. It also seems like it could be flexible in its uses, but it requires a
lot of attention to hand feed the small pieces of fuel into the grate. It would
be good if we could make it burn steadily for longer periods and be more
flexible in the types and sizes of fuels that it can burn.
So, my first prototype is an attempt to couple a gravity fuel feed to the
rocket burner to achieve a long and steady burn. I built something quick and
simple just to see if fuel will continuously feed into a rocket and burn with
the ashes falling through a grate and without clogging.
This prototype #1 is a 4" 14 ga steel tube (pipe) with a grate in the bottom.
The top is cut at an angle because it came from the scrap pile that way. To this
I have welded a wye branch of 3" pipe at 30 something deg. It has a slide gate
damper on the end. The 4" rocket leg is longer than the 3" fuel leg. For a stand
I welded a pipe that I can stick into the ground.
Burn 1. I dropped in a handful of twigs (dead wood-fallen limbs) and 4
Kingsford charcoal briquettes. The twigs quickly lit. The smoke turned clear and
it began to roar.
***Some air was flowing down the fuel leg and out the exhaust leg in a
siphoning action.
After the wood burned down, the charcoal began to burn but did not generate
the heat and flow that the twigs did with their secondary combustion. Twigs
added to the 3" fuel leg did not cover the grate well, so I added the twigs to
the 4" rocket leg, and that worked. I blew my breath down the long 4" leg, and
the fire temporary switched to the shorter 3" leg. It looked promising.
The only sawdust /shavings that I had were wet, but I decided to try to burn
some anyway. I added more twigs and tried to gradually added the sawdust. I had
some burning, but the moisture evaporating carried away the heat and the fire
went out.
I was optimistic, but it was obvious that the 4" rocket leg wanted to be the
fuel hopper leg and that the 3" leg was in the best position to be the rocket
leg. It was also obvious that it wants to burn biomass and not charcoal and that
it does not like wet sawdust.
Burn 2. I switched fuel and rocket legs by adding a section to the 3" leg to
make it longer than the 4"leg. Twigs burned fine but the prototype had trouble
with larger pieces of 3" dia dense hickory wood. The burn zone was too short and
there was too much heat loss (no insulation). My sawdust/shavings had dried some
but I could feel some moisture. I started with twigs and added 2 briquettes of
charcoal then added some sawdust. I was able to get some clear burning with some
poking and shaking, but it would go out without constant attention.
It was obvious that I had too much moisture and too much excess air.
Burn 3. To limit the airflow, I laid a flat plate to the top of the fuel leg
and added a snap on channel shaped sheet metal cap to the bottom of the grate
end. This photo does not show the bottom cap. <A
href="http://www.roman.net/~lanny/rocket1.jpg">http://www.roman.net/~lanny/rocket1.jpg.
This cap will slide to adjust the airflow. I added twigs ,then gradually added
air-dried sawdust/shavings. With some tweaking of the bottom plate I got a clear
burn. I filled the fuel leg with sawdust and it continued to burn. It would
occasionally sputter and pulse. When I poked through the grate, the sawdust
shifted and blocked the airflow to the wye joint where the secondary combustion
takes place. White, thick smoke flowed, but in a few seconds a new airway had
burned into the secondary combustion area, and the smoke cleared. This
encouraged me.
Burn 4. I filled the fuel leg to the top with twigs using thumb size pieces
and smaller to start. It lit quickly and burned clear and almost steady for 25
min. All the fuel burned with no help, but I had to clear the ashes once (no ash
storage). Then I successfully burned a load of sawdust. The airflow setting that
worked was to slide the bottom plate forward toward the wye joint side. This let
primary air enter through the back, thickest part of the fuel. Then I tilted the
plate down in front to let the secondary air in the opposite side, which took
the shortest pathway to the secondary combustion area. It works!
*** I noticed that sawdust clumps together as it burns. We may be able to use
this to our advantage.
I did not want to invest too much of my limited resources into this
prototype, which was only intended to see if fuel and ashes would flow through
the rocket. Now I know that is possible. I am very pleased with its performance
and now I am fired up and moving forward to the next prototype #2.
The next prototype #2 will be flexible so I can test many setups. It will
have an adjustable height and pitch grate, ash storage, heated secondary air
with mixing into the combustion zone, insulation or jacketing, better primary
and secondary air control, and an easily replaceable rocket leg, so I can test
different ways to introduce the secondary air. I will also increase the fuel
hopper size to accommodate larger firewood size pieces of wood and more of the
bulky type fuels.
It will soon be time to start testing for emissions from #2. The only clue
that I have now is clear exhaust.
I also need to start thinking about what inexpensive and/or local materials
to use for construction.
A few things I need to know are:
How do I test for moisture content of fuel?
What emissions do I need to test for? CO, particulate and ?
What equipment/instruments will I need to test for those emissions?
Lanny lanny@roman.net
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Ron
Larson
To: <A href="mailto:lanny@roman.net"
title=lanny@roman.net>Lanny Henson ; <A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
title=stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 11:51
PM
Subject: Re: Lanny's Stove Project

Lanny and Stovers:

Sorry for not getting back to
you sooner.  Your first message came at a bad time as the "Shell" dialog
was dying down.  Below are a few first answers:
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Lanny Henson

To: <A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
title=stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 3:12
PM
Subject: Lanny's Stove Project


Lanny's Stove Project
My name is Lanny Henson. I became a subscriber to this list about 3 years
ago. I was looking for information about charcoal and clean combustion
because I was designing a barbecue cooker. The cause of this list has stuck
my interest and I think that it would be fun to design some stoves so I am
going to spend some hobby time and build a few. I have a background in
designing and fabricating airflow systems and custom sheet metal parts.
(RWL):  This is a
great time to raise this issue, as the subject of clean combustion of
charcoal is not well understood by most of us.   Your background
with air flow is perfect to help us all out.

>I have a few questions before I start.
>1 Can you feed limited air to charcoal and get an efficient burn?
Does charcoal need secondary air to burn efficiently? What causes CO and is
energy wasted if it does not get to CO2?
(RWL):  Q1 -  I say
no, but am a little nervous about this answer because of your next question
about secondary air.  You need to have sufficient air eventually, 
but maybe this can be done in two stages.  For most charcoal ue
however, I think it is safe to say there is only a single air supply. 
We talk about primary and secondary air when we are describing a
charcoal-makings stove.
Q2. My answer is no - not necesssary - but again
maybe a possibility.  Very close to the charcoal surface, I believe we
are getting CO - but we have CO2 shortly thereafter.
Q3.  CO certainly comes from a situation
with insufficient air - and yes there is energy loss if the reaction to get
CO does not continue to get the CO2.    But we are more
concerned these days in the health aspects of CO - people die from charcoal
fires emitting too much CO.  On the "shell" list recently we have heard
of national or world standards.  Let us know if you want those numbers
on what is considered safe.
In the case of CO2 flowing past hot charcoal, you
can also have the reaction CO2 + C = 2 CO - which is a good reaction if you
desire the gases (and then you certainly need secondary air).
>2 What is the ratio of combustion air needed to burn wood gas?
Someone wrote 6 to 1. If this is correct, would that be >6 parts gas and
one part air?
Lanny Henson
(RWL):  In order to get some practice on
this sort of thing, I went to the web site called "<A
href="http://www.woodgas.org">www.woodgas.org" (maintained by Tom Reed)
and found a formula for wood gas as 20% CO, 12% H2,  3% CH4,  15%
CO2, and 50% nitrogen.   Using the molecular formulas above and
molecular weights of 12 for C, 1 for Hydrogen, and 16 for O, you can do a
chemical balance using mole equivalents, which for the first three
ingredients (if the total is 100 grams) are 20/28 = .71; 12/2= 6, and 3/16 =
.1875, so we need (.71+6)/2 + 2*.1875)=3.73 moles or 3.73*32=119 grams of
Oxygen.  Because the air is only about 23 % oxygen (this is by weight,
not by volume - which is 0.21), then the air needed is larger by a factor of
about 1.19/.23= 5.18 which is pretty close to the factor of 6 which you cite
(but not in your direction - the weight of the required air is the
larger).  Practically, to get complete combustion, you need
to think of at least the factor of 6. 
In case (like me) you are
rusty on this sort of chemistry - a mole is the number in grams of
the molecular weights of each part of the formula.  So one mole of
CO (weight 28) reacts with one/half mole of O2 (or 1/2 of 32 grams = 16
grams) to give one mole of CO2 (weight 44 grams).  A mole always
contains the Avogadro number of molecules - 6.02 E23.  Three more
numbers may be helpful.  The production of CO2 releases 94 kcal per
mole (or per 12 grams) of C; the production of water releases about 69 kcal
per mole (or 2 grams) of hydrogen; and 1 kilocalorie is 4.187
kilojoules. 
But I am pretty sure you will
not be using woodgas, in any way, with your starting fuel of charcoal. 
Assuming this is mostly carbon, the right formula is C+O2 = CO2.  This
means every 12 grams of charcoal (carbon) requires 32 grams of oxygen and
32/0.23 = 139 grams of air.  Thus the weight ratio for your barbecue
should be about 139/12 = 11.6 (about twice the number above).  But even
this is not a good number - as you need an excess air ratio to make sure you
are producing very little CO.  If you only consume half the oxygen in
your air stream, you will need about 23 times as much weight of air as of
charcoal.  From the numbers here you should find an energy number close
to 30 Megajoules per kilogram of charcoal.  If you convert a kg of
charcoal in an hour, the power is 30E6 Joules/3600 seconds or about 8.3
kJ/sec = 8.3 kWatts.  As air density at ambient temperatures
is around a kg per cubic meter, this will take around 20-25 cu meters
of air.
Sorry for the delay getting
back to you.  I hope someone else will check my work.  It has been
a long time since we on this list went through these sort of
computations (if ever).  So we now look forward to hearing how you
handled the clean charcoal conversion problem.  Remember what we want
is how to get very low CO, while not putting so much air through the system
that the efficiency is low.  I should also warn that we generally
believe that radiative transfer is more important than convection when
dealing with charcoal - so you want the pot pretty close to the
charcoal.
Best of luck.     Ron 
(a EE, not an ME or
ChE)

From dstill at epud.net Wed Sep 5 02:13:01 2001
From: dstill at epud.net (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Lanny's Stove Project
Message-ID: <001901c135f1$0aaa2dc0$3715210c@default>

 

Dear Lanny,

Great to see you working on the Rocket type stove ideas.
Perhaps you'd like to get in touch with Larry Winiarski the designer of the
Rocket stove design principles. There are 20 years of Rocket prototypes that
have explored a lot of possibilities of stove configurations, etc. A lot of
Rocket designs have either sidefeed or downfeed fuel magazines or angles in
between. Larry has spent a lot of time on burning sawdust, rice hulls, etc,
using various mechanisms. The most successful looks like a ladder under a
hopper.His phone number is 541 753 4921

I'm sure that you'll find great innovations! Please keep us
informed. Maybe you'd like Capturing Heat One and Two, booklets that go through
some of the variations of Rockets?

Best,

Dean Still
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">

From lanny at roman.net Thu Sep 6 06:30:24 2001
From: lanny at roman.net (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:00 2004
Subject: Lanny's Stove Project
In-Reply-To: <001901c135f1$0aaa2dc0$3715210c@default>
Message-ID: <008601c136be$50dafea0$10ba3cd0@default>

 

Dean,
It sounds like I need to catch up on some
information. Where can I find Capturing Heat One and two?
Lanny
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Dean Still
To: <A href="mailto:lanny@roman.net"
title=lanny@roman.net>Lanny Henson ; <A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
title=stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:56
AM
Subject: Re: Lanny's Stove Project

Dear Lanny,

Great to see you working on the Rocket type stove ideas.
Perhaps you'd like to get in touch with Larry Winiarski the designer of the
Rocket stove design principles. There are 20 years of Rocket prototypes that
have explored a lot of possibilities of stove configurations, etc. A lot of
Rocket designs have either sidefeed or downfeed fuel magazines or angles in
between. Larry has spent a lot of time on burning sawdust, rice hulls, etc,
using various mechanisms. The most successful looks like a ladder under a
hopper.His phone number is 541 753 4921

I'm sure that you'll find great innovations! Please keep us
informed. Maybe you'd like Capturing Heat One and Two, booklets that go
through some of the variations of Rockets?

Best,

Dean Still
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Sep 6 14:34:00 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Briquettes materials
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010906123031.00b53f00@mail.ilstu.edu>

Apolinario in Mozambique, (and others on the stoves list)

In my humble opinion, it appears to me that not very much is known about
the different biomass materials for briquettes.

In general, the VERY FEW people making briquettes are using whatever
materials are available and seem to burn well. There is not much "true
research" about these materials, in terms of length of burn, heat
generated, pollution, costs (both money and time), etc.

Yes, Richard Stanley has the most information, but as he has written, his
focus is on applicable impact to assist the needy people, and less on the
"engineering issues" of the briquettes and how they burn or how they can be
burned better.

And there needs to be a balance between the "beneficial applications" and
the "scientific documentation" issues.

For example, we might learn that type X of sawdust yields Y% increase in
heat at the expense of Z increase in air pollution. Great. But for the
hungry worker's family in the Andes mountains or the Zambezi floodplain,
the questions are about having "any sawdust" available and about warmth for
a cold night in the Andes or being too hot if indoors along the
Zambezi. Pollution? Minor issue compared to eating and warmth.

I just wonder if such discussions about applications and research are
covered in the BioMass conferences, like what is happening in a week or two
in Orlando? (Comments from anyone who has been to those conferences
before, please.)

All of the above comments (if reasonably accurate) means three things (and
maybe more?):

1. A major funder like Shell Foundation should consider bringing the two
sides (scientific research and applications for the benefit of the poor)
closer together for mutual benefit. I hope that someone will latch onto
this idea and get it to the right people.

2. The work that is being done in Mozambique and elsewhere about
briquettes, which I thought to be extremely basic, is in fact increasingly
important and essential. But our focus in MZ is on the applications side,
that is, on finding SOMETHING that can work reasonably well and then
propagating that something to benefit more people who have similar raw
materials and conditions. I can think of dozens of variations of
briquettes and how to burn them, which, when placed side by side in a Third
World location, could be closely observed and thereby lead to results that
could be immediately applied to that area. This would take some money and
effort, but at only a fraction of the cost of doing it at my or any other
university or research lab.

3. Personal opinion: In general, scientific research could easily gobble
up the lion's share of the available funding "in the name of generating
knowledge" while the applications side (specifically directed toward those
with minimal education and almost no capital) will only have the bones to
pick in terms of financial assistance to get even the most basic
improvements delivered to them (explained to them) in meaningful ways.

As Richard has pointed out in earlier messages, the "local people" (read
that as "the poor and semi-literate underemployed person in the Developing
World") have a "feel" for the materials, the processes, the uses of the
briquettes (or of other materials) that is far more appropriate than a
scientific instrument that measures dampness, or ppm of particles, or
calories (joules), etc. We need more work with the local implementations.

I still say we need progress and expansion of BOTH science and appropriate
application, but let's make sure that applications are not second fiddle to
our thirst for knowledge.

(Sorry if I upset anyone. But I am amazed at how little we seem to know
about such an important and basic topic and about how to get advances
delivered to the needy.)

Sincerely,

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Thu Sep 6 15:56:50 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Hello from a new subscriber
Message-ID: <005301c136a8$f962ec60$55e80fc4@home>

 

Dear Stovers

I have been introduced to this list by Doug Banks in South
Afica.  Thanks Doug for the pointer!

A brief introduction:

Name:  Crispin Pemberton-PigottPosition:
ManagerNew Dawn Engineering (Pty) Ltd.Activities:  Manufacture of
labour-based production equipment for ruralareas.

Other Activities:
Vice-Chair, Renewable Energy Association of Swaziland
(REASWA)
Member - Swaziland National Biomass Energy Team
Member - National Energy Policy drafting committee (green
paper)Participant - Climate Technology Initiative Projects group (CTIP)
within SADC

Interests:
Improving burning efficiency of small stoves,
Improving the use of available biomass to prevent
environmental problems
Mass producing biofuel briquettes from wasted
resources
Saving 1 millions tons of fuelwood by introducing better stove
technology to the region.
Replacing coal with biomass fuel for domestic cooking and
space heating

Relevant products which may stimulate subscriber
interest:(1) Biomass fired fuel efficient stoves for single and multiple
potsfeaturing primary and secondary combustion with preheated secondary
airinjection.
(2) Paper bound biomass briquettes and labour intensive
briquette making equipment
Web site <A
href="http://www.newdawn-engineering.com">www.newdawn-engineering.com
Location: Matsapha Industrial Park, Swaziland, South Eastern
Africa next toMoçambique about 400 km east of Johannesburg.

Best regards to all
Crispin

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Sep 6 17:58:56 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Briquettes materials
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010906123031.00b53f00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010906165603.01a3eaa0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Greetings to John, and copy to Stovers,

No you did not send info earlier.

I visited your website. Nice product. But manufacturing is beyond my
focus for Mozambique.

The hole in the center is very interesting.

I wonder if your logs might serve as a "standard" that is more constant and
measurable than other normal logs, PLUS you already have a hole
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Would you be interested in that? That would mean a
donation of some of your logs to people who would help determine if it
could serve as a standard.

Question to all: Do we have a "standard" or even need one????

Paul

At 11:48 AM 9/6/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>Did I ever send you info on th SHIMADA /HeatLog?
>regards
>John Olsen.
>President.
>Cree Industries.
>200 - 100 Park Royal South,
>West Vancouver,
>British Columbia,
>V7T 1A2
>CANADA
>tel/fax (604) 533 4950
>http://sites.netscape.net/hempcree/creeindustries
>cree@dowco.com
> SIB KIS
>(See It Big, Keep It Simple)

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From tami.bond at noaa.gov Thu Sep 6 19:12:00 2001
From: tami.bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Briquettes with holes
Message-ID: <3B980170.9D318959@noaa.gov>

Stovers,

Paul writes:

> 2. In my humble opinion, although this technology seems to work for China,
> I feel it is not likely to be of much application in Africa, Latin America,
> or southern Asia, at least not in the near or mid-future.

Is that because of cost?

I agree that factory-generated briquettes are not as helpful to
improving the lifestyles of many in poorer regions. It is a big
enterprise, too big for a small village. There are state-run and
privately-run briquette factories-- but they are factories, not
"cottage" industries.

Rural people in China do coal briquetting on their own because it
results in more stable and predictable combustion than burning raw coal.
I hope to get a chance to look at those village-made briquettes, too. It
is also true that coal is local to China and may not be relevant to
other areas. In rural areas, it is usually used when the region is
deforested and the people have access to near-surface coal seams. Coal
is not "sustainable" or "renewable". On a personal level, I struggle
with that issue. Is it better to get people off coal-- which would
require a major intervention? Or to promote an intermediate
intervention, such as briquetting, for health reasons?

I would guess that long-burning briquettes are more useful in cold
regions because the household needs the heat, anyway.

I think the briquette issue, coal OR biomass briquettes, is interesting
because of what we can learn about reducing emissions through various
steps of briquetting process. If there is a relationship between binder
and volatile matter, that knowledge might be applicable to more than one
fuel.

Tami

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Thu Sep 6 19:13:53 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Briquettes materials
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010906123031.00b53f00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <3B980266.6AC96639@legacyfound.org>

Paul,
I wish we knew each other 7 years ago when this all began in earnest.
The heat cpontent of thevarious mixtures of the briquettes are being studied
in Peru at  San Antonio University in Cusco. The heat contect 
and pollutants have been studied at our own Southern Oregon University
here in Ashland Oregon. In fact our paper on the latter is to be presented
at the Fifth Biomass conference.
While I and one of our Kenyan counterpart organisations are developing
improved presses, the need remains for the key link into the mass community,
if we are to do any good. I concur about ther need for expanded scientific
research but it should be stated that in fairness , this is not the weak
link: Materials research will go on forever but every maize crop per every
locality and time of harvest and microclimate will give different results.
Chala de maize at 11,200 ft in Mosocclaycta does nto yield the same kind
of heat as the chafu za mahindi in Kangemi Kenya. And even if it did the
cooking application and elevation differences are so substantial as to
warrant an entirely separate investigation.
One can make quite a research project just about his aspect  but
in the end, it rests with the indigineous citisen to determine and fine
tune the trechnology for their own circumstances. There is a certain beauty
in that fact. They have to be engaged to make it work for their own area.
Still I do not discount the need for improvements in the production
technologies and applicaiton of the briquettes. There is always a new twist
to be explored and the need is outrageously huge and increasing--and after
seven years with it we are only on the tip of the iceberg.
As concerns your kind effort to get me into Mozambique, as part of some
other trip, thanks but I should remind you that the trip itself has to
be paid for. This is not part of other work ofor us. It is one of our main
efforts.
Richard Stanley


 

From cree at dowco.com Thu Sep 6 21:27:04 2001
From: cree at dowco.com (John Olsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Fw: Briquettes materials
Message-ID: <006601c1373b$d3481800$678457d1@olsen>

 

 
Paul,Certainly we would supply "Heatlogs" for
research. As we open more and more factories, on Native Reserves,
across North America, using theabundant sawdust and biomass, a consistent
log in size weight and specs, is always
available. regards John Olsen
Cree Industries> I wonder if your logs
might serve as a "standard" that is more constant andmeasurable than
other normal logs, PLUS you already have a hole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
Would you be interested in that?  That would mean adonation of some of
your logs to people who would help determine if itcould serve as a
standard.

From costaeec at kcnet.com Thu Sep 6 23:18:27 2001
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (James Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Briquettes materials
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010906123031.00b53f00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <CEEJJCPBKMDPHAMPLNGPAEFFCAAA.costaeec@kcnet.com>

Paul & all;

I have not responded to this topic before, but it seems time to offer some
history.

The sad fact is that much is known about biomass densification, but the
reality of economics often prevents the utilization of this knowledge in
situations or areas where there is no profit potential.

We have been involved in biomass briquetting for decades, using virtually
every imaginable feedstock, in all areas of the world. From pellets to 125mm
briquettes; low density to rock hard; solid pucks to center hole to
multi-hole. The technology exists & is in wide use. It's all been done and
there are volumes of data to define the characteristics of each variation.

We get many inquiries from around the globe, and many are from developing
countries. I am ashamed to admit that we have yet to install a modern,
automated briquetting system in these areas; even when they desperately need
it and have access to funds.

The attitude seems to be that it is too costly or they would rather use
manual labor to keep the people busy. Perhaps that is true or perhaps they
are simply not ready to accept modern technology or a project which reeks of
'capitalism'. I am not qualified to determine that, but it seems primitive
to admit a serious problem exists, yet refuse to accept the proven
solutions.

Many areas simply don't have the materials or demand to justify mechanical
systems, but with a little creativity in calculating transportation costs
(or simply the difficulty) of bulk materials versus densified materials the
equations look quite different.

We can't help with methods of hand making small quantities of briquettes,
but I think it might be quite shocking to some to see how close your
situations are to justifying modern automation.

BOTTON LINE: With certain supply and demand conditions in place, you can
provide cheap cooking and heating fuel AND make a profit!

Glad to help, if we can.

Jim Dunham, CEO
Enviro-Energy Corp.
816.452.6663

 

lto:psanders@ilstu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:38 PM
To: Apolinario J Malawene; stoves@crest.org
Cc: Bob and Karla Weldon; Ed Francis; Tsamba--Alberto Julio;
clucas33@yahoo.com; clucas@zebra.uem.mz
Subject: Briquettes materials

Apolinario in Mozambique, (and others on the stoves list)

In my humble opinion, it appears to me that not very much is known about
the different biomass materials for briquettes.

In general, the VERY FEW people making briquettes are using whatever
materials are available and seem to burn well. There is not much "true
research" about these materials, in terms of length of burn, heat
generated, pollution, costs (both money and time), etc.

Yes, Richard Stanley has the most information, but as he has written, his
focus is on applicable impact to assist the needy people, and less on the
"engineering issues" of the briquettes and how they burn or how they can be
burned better.

And there needs to be a balance between the "beneficial applications" and
the "scientific documentation" issues.

For example, we might learn that type X of sawdust yields Y% increase in
heat at the expense of Z increase in air pollution. Great. But for the
hungry worker's family in the Andes mountains or the Zambezi floodplain,
the questions are about having "any sawdust" available and about warmth for
a cold night in the Andes or being too hot if indoors along the
Zambezi. Pollution? Minor issue compared to eating and warmth.

I just wonder if such discussions about applications and research are
covered in the BioMass conferences, like what is happening in a week or two
in Orlando? (Comments from anyone who has been to those conferences
before, please.)

All of the above comments (if reasonably accurate) means three things (and
maybe more?):

1. A major funder like Shell Foundation should consider bringing the two
sides (scientific research and applications for the benefit of the poor)
closer together for mutual benefit. I hope that someone will latch onto
this idea and get it to the right people.

2. The work that is being done in Mozambique and elsewhere about
briquettes, which I thought to be extremely basic, is in fact increasingly
important and essential. But our focus in MZ is on the applications side,
that is, on finding SOMETHING that can work reasonably well and then
propagating that something to benefit more people who have similar raw
materials and conditions. I can think of dozens of variations of
briquettes and how to burn them, which, when placed side by side in a Third
World location, could be closely observed and thereby lead to results that
could be immediately applied to that area. This would take some money and
effort, but at only a fraction of the cost of doing it at my or any other
university or research lab.

3. Personal opinion: In general, scientific research could easily gobble
up the lion's share of the available funding "in the name of generating
knowledge" while the applications side (specifically directed toward those
with minimal education and almost no capital) will only have the bones to
pick in terms of financial assistance to get even the most basic
improvements delivered to them (explained to them) in meaningful ways.

As Richard has pointed out in earlier messages, the "local people" (read
that as "the poor and semi-literate underemployed person in the Developing
World") have a "feel" for the materials, the processes, the uses of the
briquettes (or of other materials) that is far more appropriate than a
scientific instrument that measures dampness, or ppm of particles, or
calories (joules), etc. We need more work with the local implementations.

I still say we need progress and expansion of BOTH science and appropriate
application, but let's make sure that applications are not second fiddle to
our thirst for knowledge.

(Sorry if I upset anyone. But I am amazed at how little we seem to know
about such an important and basic topic and about how to get advances
delivered to the needy.)

Sincerely,

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Fri Sep 7 00:05:43 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Hello Biofolks, I'm Dan Dimiduk
Message-ID: <108.51c7a1f.28c9a0a8@aol.com>

Hello stovers, friends,
My name is Dan Dimiduk and I have been with you since March. Some of you
already know me. My favorite topic would be CHARCOAL MAKING with emphasis on
metallurgical fuel and retort process. I have an interest in the big picture
involving sustainable biomass production including reforestation. I also
look at upgrading of existing use patterns such as converting biomass waste
for general fossil fuel replacement, including all types of energy, supplies
and materials.
As a less formally educated individual, I find these lists to be the best
communication tool since the campfire gathering was conceived. My questions
and answers tend to be less technical, more conceptual, but I can help
troubleshoot over a wide range of topics. Challenge me.
I am a professional landscape Maintenance, micro-businessman.
If seedplanting, greenhouse growing, spraying, mowing, pruning, chipping,
mulching, hauling, cutting, heating by burning, and upgrade maintaining of
equipment, all count as a "lifetime career in BIOMASS ENERGY" then I'm your
man.

In response to Tami's letter (stoves) about the significance of
briquetting rock coal in China or anywhere, something to consider. Any
technilogical improvement which reduces pollution and the use of fossil fuel,
while benefiting human health, is in our interest and earns respect.
We trade information freely with fossil fuel people when common goals
are met. Despite our differences in approach, we work with the same science,
or is it art?
Has anyone considered trying different SHAPES of holes in these
briquettes? The study of solid fuel rocketry has involved extensive
experimentation with many types of combustion holes from star shaped to
conical. The ignition surface changes as the burn progresses, changing the
thrust curve and performance. I suggest that by mating the shape, size, and
hole geometry (if any) of a briquette to the composition, binder, and density
of the fuel, we can control all of the factors desired. Ignitability being
the foremost, since that is the biggest problem. Examine star shape holes,
or finlike projections within.
The Byzantine Catholic Church uses an incense burner with a maybe 1 cm
thick by 5 cm diameter cake of charcoal, coated with dried potassium nitrate
solution as an ignition surface. The ones I've seen had also a star shaped
ridge in the top to assist ignition. A match was all that was necessary.
This study is much like pyrotechnics with air as oxidizer. We try as
scientist's to define something suited more to art. As brought up in a
recent(gasification) letter to Jim Bland, the most technically advanced
greenhouses have to monitor the nutrient solution daily to find what the
plants are taking up, even with most conditions controlled and a monostand of
plants. Other than a guideline, how can one expect to have a clue what is in
a given biomass sample without some analysis?
The coal industry just this year decided to standardize their industry
with 12,000 btu/lb. and a guideline of acceptable impurities for each grade
of coal. Even hardness or grindability are graded. This was in order to open
a futures market on the Ohio River. (info courtesy NYMEX)
I suggest that we look at generalities and categorize our biomass loosely
to avoid frustration when trying to compare notes. "The beauty in our work
is when it works, and works well." At your service,
Daniel Dimiduk
Shangri-La Research and
Development.
Dayton, Ohio, USA

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Sep 7 15:31:22 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Briquettes -- Modern automation
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010906123031.00b53f00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010907131850.01a4bda0@mail.ilstu.edu>

James and all,

You comments are most appreciated, and highly appropriate for the
discussion which now takes an ADDITIONAL (not other) course, the topic of
what modern, automated industry can bring to the discussion of the
briquettes and stoves.

First, I for one am very curious and anxious to have access to the
information you mention. Could you please direct us to Internet (or other)
sources of data, etc? (Similar to what John Olsen <cree@dowco.com> can
provide about his Heatlogs. Ask him if you want the file to download, but
I am not posting his powerpoint presentation to the listserve because file
size can be an issue for some on the list. John O: why not take your text
from the ppt and send it to the list with a thumbnail of one picture?)

James, Part of what you bring to the discussion is related to the hotly
debated topic of Globalization. Some of the strongest objections come
from the most needy countries who have seen commercially viable enterprise
ADVERSELY affect the small, local producers of many different types of
products. That debate can be followed on other listserves, and I do NOT
want to focus on it here on the Stoves list.

The ability to make a profit is not the main issue that we want to address,
especially when only a few people (with capital) receive the profit.

The main issue is a better life for millions and billions who are cooking
over sub-optimal stoves with sub-optimal fuels while damaging their health
and the environment.

I totally believe you when you wrote:

>The sad fact is that much is known about biomass densification, but the
>reality of economics often prevents the utilization of this knowledge in
>situations or areas where there is no profit potential.

I (and probably most of us) have NO objection to you being compensated for
such information (by selling your products and methods or by selling the
information.) But the issue is that we (generic "we" for the stoves list
members) want your information. And we are then likely to apply it in ways
that do not sell your products, at least not in the developing countries.

Please help me to know if and how I (we) can obtain the information fairly.

You wrote:
>We have been involved in biomass briquetting for decades, using virtually
>every imaginable feedstock, in all areas of the world. From pellets to 125mm
>briquettes; low density to rock hard; solid pucks to center hole to
>multi-hole. The technology exists & is in wide use. It's all been done and
>there are volumes of data to define the characteristics of each variation.

Wow!! You said "multi-hole", and that is a hot topic with me at
present. Also "low-density" is highly important when machinery is poor or
non-existent.

I want to be highly RESPECTFUL of you and your knowledge and your company,
so please do not misunderstand me when I discuss you next paragraph:

You wrote:
>We get many inquiries from around the globe, and many are from developing
>countries. I am ashamed to admit that we have yet to install a modern,
>automated briquetting system in these areas; even when they desperately need
>it and have access to funds.

Somehow, something is not clicking. And I think it is when the inquiries
from developing countries are interpreted as sales opportunities. There is
nothing to be ashamed of concerning not installing not even one modern
automated briquetting system. Instead, the issue is "how can what you know
be transformed into a solution or solutions that will bring the desired
benefits to those needy people?"

And there are about 300 people on this Stoves list serve who would be
willing for free to help with that transformation. And they will help you
make the links with the Shell Foundation and other funding sources. But
our focus is primarily for some technology that is called "appropriate" and
not necessarily call "modern" and probably not called "automated."

You also wrote:
>We can't help with methods of hand making small quantities of briquettes,
>but I think it might be quite shocking to some to see how close your
>situations are to justifying modern automation.

Again, respectfully, I would suggest a revised version of that paragraph to
read:

>[ Perhaps ] we [can use our knowledge to] help with methods of hand making
>small quantities of briquettes, [because some of you ]
>think it might be quite shocking to some to see how close [our information
>about]
>situations [that use] modern automation [ are to what is possible in
>impoverished societies].

To James and to all, my apologies again. Once again I am pushing the
limits of propriety because I am bringing my feelings (instead of objective
science and applications) to the Stoves list.

James, we ARE interested in knowing what are your products. and we ARE
interested in knowing what research you have conducted. and we ARE
interested in discussing with you the links and transformations of
knowledge to obtain "appropriate" stove and fuel solutions for a couple
billion people.

Enough for this message.

Your friend,

Paul

 

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Sep 7 15:41:59 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010907143454.01a44310@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

I would think that those going to the Biomass conference would be posting
to the list serve their names and points of contact.

And those who have gone before, what will the conference be like? How
much on the high end of technology, and how much on the "appropriate" end?

Do "stovers" get together?

We know that Tom Reed and Richard Stanley are going. (Richard, we want a
copy of your paper / presentation posted to the listserve, please.)
Sorry, I do not see how I could attend.

Ron L. or Tom, could you repost the conference information to the listserv,
please.

Are there other conferences equally or more important for stovers to
attend? Or is this the big one?

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Fri Sep 7 16:50:54 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010907143454.01a44310@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <3B993261.40783C08@legacyfound.org>

Paul et al.,

Our paper will be a direct reprint of the Chemical innovation journal . The
talk will be abit more elaborate and graphically enhanced. The website
reference is as give earlier:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/mcdoug/mcdoug_0201.html

Richard Stanley

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Fri Sep 7 23:20:14 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Briquettes materials
In-Reply-To: <CEEJJCPBKMDPHAMPLNGPAEFFCAAA.costaeec@kcnet.com>
Message-ID: <00aa01c13814$a54a5ce0$c643b5d1@computer>

James:

Thanks for your information below. Like Paul Anderson, I would
appreciate more leads on where the briquetting information is located.
Specific journals, conferences, web sites, etc.?

The main surprise to me in the past few months was in learning about the
impact of holes in briquettes - in being easier to light having a powerful
flame, and in pyrolyzing fully before combustion begins of the char. Can
you direct us to specific references where more could be learned of these
aspects? Any reason to think there should be lower emissions when there are
holes in the briquettes?

Are there other important reasons for putting holes in briquettes?

Do you have reasons to believe that mechanized forms (presumably much
"tougher") will have mechanical or advantages over hand-formed briquettes?

Have you ever heard of ("holey" or otherwise) briquettes being pyrolyzed
so that the resulting "charcoal" briquettes were
used in another location and combuster?

Anything more to add about your own firm and about the future of
briquettes (holey or otherwise) both in developed and developing countries?

Thanks in advance for anything more you can add.

Ron

 

----- Original Message -----
From: James Dunham <costaeec@kcnet.com>
To: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>; Apolinario J Malawene
<ajmalawene01@hotmail.com>; <stoves@crest.org>
Cc: Bob and Karla Weldon <bobkarlaweldon@cs.com>; Ed Francis
<cfranc@ilstu.edu>; Tsamba--Alberto Julio <ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz>;
<clucas33@yahoo.com>; <clucas@zebra.uem.mz>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: Briquettes materials

> Paul & all;
>
> I have not responded to this topic before, but it seems time to offer some
> history.
>
> The sad fact is that much is known about biomass densification, but the
> reality of economics often prevents the utilization of this knowledge in
> situations or areas where there is no profit potential.
>
> We have been involved in biomass briquetting for decades, using virtually
> every imaginable feedstock, in all areas of the world. From pellets to
125mm
> briquettes; low density to rock hard; solid pucks to center hole to
> multi-hole. The technology exists & is in wide use. It's all been done and
> there are volumes of data to define the characteristics of each variation.
>
> We get many inquiries from around the globe, and many are from developing
> countries. I am ashamed to admit that we have yet to install a modern,
> automated briquetting system in these areas; even when they desperately
need
> it and have access to funds.
>
> The attitude seems to be that it is too costly or they would rather use
> manual labor to keep the people busy. Perhaps that is true or perhaps they
> are simply not ready to accept modern technology or a project which reeks
of
> 'capitalism'. I am not qualified to determine that, but it seems primitive
> to admit a serious problem exists, yet refuse to accept the proven
> solutions.
>
> Many areas simply don't have the materials or demand to justify mechanical
> systems, but with a little creativity in calculating transportation costs
> (or simply the difficulty) of bulk materials versus densified materials
the
> equations look quite different.
>
> We can't help with methods of hand making small quantities of briquettes,
> but I think it might be quite shocking to some to see how close your
> situations are to justifying modern automation.
>
> BOTTON LINE: With certain supply and demand conditions in place, you can
> provide cheap cooking and heating fuel AND make a profit!
>
> Glad to help, if we can.
>
> Jim Dunham, CEO
> Enviro-Energy Corp.
> 816.452.6663
>
>
>
> lto:psanders@ilstu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:38 PM
> To: Apolinario J Malawene; stoves@crest.org
> Cc: Bob and Karla Weldon; Ed Francis; Tsamba--Alberto Julio;
> clucas33@yahoo.com; clucas@zebra.uem.mz
> Subject: Briquettes materials
>
>
> Apolinario in Mozambique, (and others on the stoves list)
>
> In my humble opinion, it appears to me that not very much is known about
> the different biomass materials for briquettes.
>
> In general, the VERY FEW people making briquettes are using whatever
> materials are available and seem to burn well. There is not much "true
> research" about these materials, in terms of length of burn, heat
> generated, pollution, costs (both money and time), etc.
>
> Yes, Richard Stanley has the most information, but as he has written, his
> focus is on applicable impact to assist the needy people, and less on the
> "engineering issues" of the briquettes and how they burn or how they can
be
> burned better.
>
> And there needs to be a balance between the "beneficial applications" and
> the "scientific documentation" issues.
>
> For example, we might learn that type X of sawdust yields Y% increase in
> heat at the expense of Z increase in air pollution. Great. But for the
> hungry worker's family in the Andes mountains or the Zambezi floodplain,
> the questions are about having "any sawdust" available and about warmth
for
> a cold night in the Andes or being too hot if indoors along the
> Zambezi. Pollution? Minor issue compared to eating and warmth.
>
> I just wonder if such discussions about applications and research are
> covered in the BioMass conferences, like what is happening in a week or
two
> in Orlando? (Comments from anyone who has been to those conferences
> before, please.)
>
> All of the above comments (if reasonably accurate) means three things (and
> maybe more?):
>
> 1. A major funder like Shell Foundation should consider bringing the two
> sides (scientific research and applications for the benefit of the poor)
> closer together for mutual benefit. I hope that someone will latch onto
> this idea and get it to the right people.
>
> 2. The work that is being done in Mozambique and elsewhere about
> briquettes, which I thought to be extremely basic, is in fact increasingly
> important and essential. But our focus in MZ is on the applications side,
> that is, on finding SOMETHING that can work reasonably well and then
> propagating that something to benefit more people who have similar raw
> materials and conditions. I can think of dozens of variations of
> briquettes and how to burn them, which, when placed side by side in a
Third
> World location, could be closely observed and thereby lead to results that
> could be immediately applied to that area. This would take some money and
> effort, but at only a fraction of the cost of doing it at my or any other
> university or research lab.
>
> 3. Personal opinion: In general, scientific research could easily gobble
> up the lion's share of the available funding "in the name of generating
> knowledge" while the applications side (specifically directed toward those
> with minimal education and almost no capital) will only have the bones to
> pick in terms of financial assistance to get even the most basic
> improvements delivered to them (explained to them) in meaningful ways.
>
> As Richard has pointed out in earlier messages, the "local people" (read
> that as "the poor and semi-literate underemployed person in the Developing
> World") have a "feel" for the materials, the processes, the uses of the
> briquettes (or of other materials) that is far more appropriate than a
> scientific instrument that measures dampness, or ppm of particles, or
> calories (joules), etc. We need more work with the local implementations.
>
> I still say we need progress and expansion of BOTH science and appropriate
> application, but let's make sure that applications are not second fiddle
to
> our thirst for knowledge.
>
> (Sorry if I upset anyone. But I am amazed at how little we seem to know
> about such an important and basic topic and about how to get advances
> delivered to the needy.)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Paul
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Fri Sep 7 23:20:58 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Briquettes materials
In-Reply-To: <006601c1373b$d3481800$678457d1@olsen>
Message-ID: <00ab01c13814$a79d74a0$c643b5d1@computer>

 

John:
I went to your web site,
received the offered additional information, and now have a few more
questions.

1.  It looks like your product could have some
value as a standard - as Paul suggests below.  Do you keep records on where
it is sold (such as near Denver) so persons so interested might find logs
locally?  (probably best to not clog our list with all these queries - but
perhaps this answer will suggest means for others to learn how they may be
obtained)

2.  I sense that your briquettes are not
intended to be placed in a vertical position.  Have you ever seen any data
for combustion such that the flame was predominantly within the central
hole?

3.  I did some calculations with your
production data which seems to say that there should be less than a penny's
worth of electricity cost in one "log".  Any data on the number of "logs"
to be expected out of one extruder?  On maintenance costs?

4.  Have you heard of anyone
cutting your logs to make 3, 4, 5 (?) smaller briquettes which would be
consumed with the hole having a vertical axis?  Would it be easy to make
shorter logs?

5.  Have you sold any units in developing
countries?  Any ideas on the success of sales of the logs?

6.  Your "logs" seem to be more square than
round.  What advantage comes from that geometry?

7.  Any favorite source of information on
briquetting - especially on the emission properties?

8.  See also some questions in reply to the
message from James Dunham - feel free to answer any of thoe as
well.

Thanks in advance for the information you have
provided and on any more answers you can provide.

Ron
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
John Olsen
To: <A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
title=stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:24
PM
Subject: Fw: Briquettes materials


Paul,Certainly we would supply "Heatlogs" for
research. As we open more and more factories, on Native Reserves,
across North America, using theabundant sawdust and biomass, a consistent
log in size weight and specs, is always
available. regards John Olsen
Cree Industries> I wonder if your
logs might serve as a "standard" that is more constant andmeasurable
than other normal logs, PLUS you already have a
hole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Would you be interested in that? 
That would mean adonation of some of your logs to people who would help
determine if itcould serve as a
standard.

From cree at dowco.com Sat Sep 8 11:26:05 2001
From: cree at dowco.com (John Olsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Briquettes materials
In-Reply-To: <006601c1373b$d3481800$678457d1@olsen>
Message-ID: <002f01c1387a$43ec26c0$6a8457d1@olsen>

 

Hi Ron and List,
The SHIMADA has been sold around the World for 17
years (750 in operation) and I am introducing the SHIMADA machine and the
"Heatlogs" and the smaller "Barbecue fuel", to the North American market
now.
Soon we hope to have them available at your local
gas station, chain stores and in fund raising efforts door -to-door, where
people use fireplaces.
The machine is approved by the World Bank and we have
many installations and orders pending to developing
countries.
The logs are "square" (actually 8 sided so they dont
spin in the machine) always 1.25 tonnes per
cubic metre in density, because a "screw" is used, the machine turns at a
constant speed, and the load is constant, making the maintenance vey low. (of
course dry, shredded, biomass without contaminants is needed.)

regards
John Olsen.President.Cree Industries. 200
- 100 Park Royal South,West Vancouver,British Columbia,V7T
1A2CANADAtel/fax (604) 533 4950<A
href="http://sites.netscape.net/hempcree/creeindustries">http://sites.netscape.net/hempcree/creeindustries<A
href="mailto:cree@dowco.com">cree@dowco.com       
SIB KIS (See It Big, Keep It Simple)


From shaase at mcneiltech.com Sun Sep 9 02:11:23 2001
From: shaase at mcneiltech.com (Scott Haase)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010907143454.01a44310@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <CGEJLLCPLGFOGLIEDIPEIENLCIAA.shaase@mcneiltech.com>

I will be attending. My contact info is as follows:

Scott Haase
McNeil Technologies
143 Union Blvd., Suite 900
Lakewood, CO 80228
www.mcneiltech.com

Most of my time is spent working on biomass energy and biomass resource
utilization issues in the western U.S. I follow the discussion here on the
stoves list, but do not post much. As I spent four years working in Lesotho
and South Africa, I am very interested in what goes on in the SADC
countries, especially in the areas of renewable energy in general, and
biomass in particular.

I will post additional information on my current work areas at the bottom of
this post.

Now a little on the conferences. I have been going to these conferences
since about 1994. I would say most of the papers are on the high end of
technology applications and research - mainly in the U.S and Europe. But I
think smaller-scale discussions are on the increase. I have always found the
conferences to be very interesting and useful, both for technical knowledge,
social interaction, and developing new business and professional contacts.
But that is from the perspective of working for a US based consulting
company with most of my work being focused in this country, and mostly based
on U.S. government funding and programs. So the opinions on usefulness may
differ by others on this list. Whether stovers could get together informally
depends on if anyone organizes something or wants to seek others out. This
could be accomplished here or by word of mouth and diligent searching at the
conference. If there is anyone from southern Africa attending, it would be
great to meet you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Summary of Current Work Focus:

I am interested in U.S. applications for some of the recent topics here on
briquettes, charcoal making and pressed log manufacturing. Actually I am
interested in meeting with people (or emailing) and discussing any
technologies or concepts for using biomass here in the U.S. for small scale
energy projects. These can be either private sector (new business creation
and end-use applications such as on-site co-gen) or community based
applications such as converting schools to biomass heating technologies. The
biomass will be mainly generated in the form of chipped small diameter trees
and brush produced through forest fire prevention thinning programs.

The major issue that I - and many others - are looking at now is related to
the threat of catastrophic wildfire facing many western forests, especially
within the Pine and Pine/Fir zones of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada,
California, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho and eastern Oregon and
Washington. This region covers millions and millions of acres of forest and
contains millions of tons of biomass that could be turned into energy and
other higher value products.

Over the past 100 years there has been a tremendous build-up of fuel loads
in most forests of the western U.S., and in states like Florida. These
conditions have been created through an interaction of heavy logging and
over grazing in the late 1800s, near-total fire suppression for the last
century, recent droughts and warming climate conditions, beetle and disease
outbreaks, and general land management policies of the country. If anyone on
this list will be in FL, I encourage you to look at the amount of fuel in
the wooded areas surrounding Orlando.

Most western forests now have an abundance of uniform, crowded stands of
small diameter trees - sometimes 400-500 and more per acre as opposed to
historic conditions that may have had 40-50 per acre and a much greater mix
of small to very large trees in mixed canopy conditions. The stands are
even-aged, closed-canopy and in many cases contain trees that are dead or
dying due to disease, drought, and insect outbreaks.

The current response by land management agencies to the fire threat/small
diameter issue is to treat the land, (either by mechanical thinning,
prescribed burning or a combination thereof) in an effort to reduce the fuel
load. The effort is aimed at both ecology and fire threat reduction. It is
hoped that these programs will "restore" the forest to conditions that are
more in line with how they looked in the mid 1800s and will be more
resilient to fire, and not as prone to totally destructive canopy fires that
we have seen lately.

Currently, more and more material is being mechanically cut and then either
removed or piled and burned. Removal is very expensive, and there are very
few markets for the small diameter trees. The agencies prefer to burn the
trees on site because it is cheaper. But there is such a build up of fuel
that the real potential exists for the controlled burns to get away (witness
the Los Alamos fire last year that started as a controlled burn in a
National Park and turned into a 40,000 acre burn that destroyed hundreds of
homes and threatened a nuclear facility). So the benefits of new markets for
this low-value, high-cost biomass could be considerable, but they are
challenging.

Energy is one potential market that could be developed, but the applications
need to be as high value as possible to offset the costs of fuel. I believe
there are opportunities in areas such as electricity production ranging from
very small - 15 kW - up to 20 MW. Other areas include central
heating/cooling systems for schools and commercial buildings, pelleting,
pressed logs, charcoal manufacture, briquettes, utility co-firing,
distributed generation and manufacture of liquid biofuels.

Any ideas are welcome. If you have a viable technology and are looking for
potential new markets or pilot project locations, please contact me and we
can discuss additional ideas.

Scott Haase

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S. Anderson [mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:46 PM
To: Apolinário J Malawene; Bob and Karla Weldon; Ed Francis;
stoves@crest.org; Tsamba--Alberto Julio; clucas33@yahoo.com;
clucas@zebra.uem.mz
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?

Stovers,

I would think that those going to the Biomass conference would be posting
to the list serve their names and points of contact.

And those who have gone before, what will the conference be like? How
much on the high end of technology, and how much on the "appropriate" end?

Do "stovers" get together?

We know that Tom Reed and Richard Stanley are going. (Richard, we want a
copy of your paper / presentation posted to the listserve, please.)
Sorry, I do not see how I could attend.

Ron L. or Tom, could you repost the conference information to the listserv,
please.

Are there other conferences equally or more important for stovers to
attend? Or is this the big one?

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sun Sep 9 08:06:00 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Invitation to Paul
Message-ID: <006901c138c2$b938c1c0$43e80fc4@home>

 

Dear  Paul

I was hunting around the biomass links in the newsletter this
morning.  I just had a look at your website where you have a picture of
yourself.  My wife Margaret (Pres of Malkerns Valley Club last year)
commented that she met you at the Rotary District conference in Nelspruit! 
Dang!  Small world!  Sorry I missed you at that time - no doubt I was
talking to someone else as is my wont.

I suggest that the next time you drive over to Manzini
(only 100 miles for those who aren't familiar with our neck of the woods)
you could come and visit our Matsapha workshop and have a look at the stoves and
labour-intensive briquette making system we are working on.  So glad to
have you so close.  Orlando might as well be on the moon.

It appears we have a lot to share.

We are working towards a commercially produced version of the
old Zimbabwean Tsotso (Shona for 'twig') stove which will be sold under an Nguni
language name, "Basintuthu" ('makes fire from smoke').  We are trying to
get them to the market for about $20.  A little optimistic but the Mbaula
coal burner is about that price when made in the townships.

We are doing OK on the briquette making system but are of
course struggling to get them ignited without kindling.

There is only one coconut palm tree in Swaziland, at the
Matata shop outside Big Bend.  I convinced Stephan to give me the husks and
after a little trying, managed to get some clean secondary combustion from that
wretched fuel using a locally produced Basintuthu stove. 

There is so much husk material where you are just lying
around.  I think we should briquette it (which I did not try) and use
secondary combustion stoves to burn it.  It is pretty much as clean as
burning charcoal it the temps are high and the price would be rock bottom 
.  The (recently) late Peter Forbes was intending to introduce a stove from
us to Moçambique that was designed to burn coconut husks efficiently.  You
have huge amounts of wasted fuel lying around in Moç because of a lack of a
stove that can burn it properly.  As far as I know it is only burned in
huge smoking piles against a large 3-legged pot.

Yesterday I put up a page on our website on the briquette we
are developing for production in the Orange Free State starting in
November.  That system is suited to use the soft inner part of the
husk.  The outside has a lot of energy in it and that burns well without a
problem.

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
(w) (00268) 518-4194 and 518-5016 +FAX
<FONT
size=2>www.newdawn-engineering.com
and if you are having trouble with that site (it might be
Mac-hostile, sorry Richard) you can try
<FONT color=#ff00ff
size=2>cr201099-a.bloor1.on.wave.home.com
(no www in front of that one)  It is only on line part of
the day but it has a very fast connection

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sun Sep 9 10:52:36 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Invitation to Paul
In-Reply-To: <006901c138c2$b938c1c0$43e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <017401c1393e$93c680e0$bc6ae1cf@computer>

 

Crispin (cc to stovers):
This is mainly to congratulate
you on your web site and the great collection of Appropriate Technology products
that you are manufacturing.  It looks like you are doing very well in this
business.  To others, I recommend this site given below. (I couldn't open
the second one - is it identical or similar?)

A few followups and
questions:

1.  Back in 1995, I worked for 5 months in
Harare and saw and admired the Tso-Tso stove that you have been working
with.  I had one modified to become a charcoal-making stove, but had
little time to test it or get it shown around.  I think it was left with
the AT department at the University.  It was not yet optimized and I can't
even remember what modifications I made.  I am pleased that you think
it might be manufactured for $20.   Can you supply the stoves
list any data on the acceptability of your present product?  Is its
considerably higher (than $20) cost a considerable drawback?  What lifetime
is found for the competing $20 coal stove?

2.  As you probably know we have had
considerable discussion on this list of "holey" briquettes.  Please let me
know if you didn't read those, so I can be more specific.
a.  What is the reasons
that your briquettes are square?  Your baking ovens are square - do they
find more use in such a unit?  Are they fired one level high?
b.  It appears that your
combustion is similar to that reported by Paul and Richard - most or all of
the flame being in the central hole.  Do you notice any differences from
what they report?
c.  Your paper
briquette does not appear to have holes.  Any reason?  Would
they be easy to add?
d.  It appears that
the  "holey" briquettes are completely pyrolyzed before the resultant
"charcoal" begins to be consumed.  Have you noticed anyone saving the
"charcoal" for use in a different stove?   Can you describe the
difference in heat output before and after they have been pyrolyzed? 
Anything more you can supply from your experience would be helpful (to other
stovers - there is a lot of good technical stove and briquette data at Crispin's
site.)
e.  Your site made a major
point of the desirability of paper for holding the briquettes together (which
are apparently mostly done by you with sawdust and charcoal dust).  
Can you send us to any other written material or web site on this
property?
f.  You obviously have
given a lot of thought to the subject of human powered presses (including rock
presses).  Do you think we will ever see human-powered extruders for
briquettes like you, Richard, and Paul have been investigating?  (which
look like they might have a higher throughput).  Are you in this business
because of some technical training background?

3.  On brickmaking:
a.  We have had
considerable discussion on this list about lightweight insulative bricks. 
Your site looks like this would be fairly easy for you to do some testing. 
The US ceramic industry has a lot of interest recently on the use of a lot of
paper being added to the clay before firing (giving added strength to a lighter
product).  I think that just adding a few (?) of your
(paper-sawdust-charcoal) briquettes to a brick (to be fired, not using cement)
might give a very desirable insulative product. (Dean still has recently
talked about something similar - but you appear to have more
access to the appropriate tools and different trades. Have you ever
considered such?
b.  I was impressed with
your hand-powered mixers with internal chains rather than blades.  Was this
your own innovation?

4.  Other.
You have shown a long list of
other AT products that we could discuss - but I better stop.  I especially
like the design for the solar dryer and your work with wire product
manufacturing equipment.  Any comments on the economic payback time for the
former?  On the latter, I wonder if you have ever seen a way to build wire
mesh baskets for fuel exchange in a stove?  Is stainless wire available -
and what cost to go to stainless?   Can you make grills and similar
from larger wires?

Thanks again for your contribution.  It is
great to see persons like yourself on this list!  Please feel free to tell
us of the importance of shops like yours for stove manufacture.  Do you
believe that smaller or larger scales will be your more serious
competitors?

I hope any similar firm owners
listening in will also tell us about their  (stove-related) products and
work.  Elsen Karstad (Nairobi) has similar capabilities and talents - but
is not (yet?) selling manufacturing items for others to make an income
from.  The world needs more people like these two.  (I saw a nice
similar operation in Masvingo (Zimbabwe) - but think it is out of business
now.)


Ron


--- Original Message -----
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Crispin

To: <A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
title=stoves@crest.org>Stoves
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 5:59
PM
Subject: Invitation to Paul

Dear  Paul

I was hunting around the biomass links in the newsletter
this morning.  I just had a look at your website where you have a picture
of yourself.  My wife Margaret (Pres of Malkerns Valley Club last year)
commented that she met you at the Rotary District conference in
Nelspruit!  Dang!  Small world!  Sorry I missed you at that
time - no doubt I was talking to someone else as is my wont.

I suggest that the next time you drive over to Manzini
(only 100 miles for those who aren't familiar with our neck of the woods)
you could come and visit our Matsapha workshop and have a look at the stoves
and labour-intensive briquette making system we are working on.  So glad
to have you so close.  Orlando might as well be on the moon.

It appears we have a lot to share.

We are working towards a commercially produced version of
the old Zimbabwean Tsotso (Shona for 'twig') stove which will be sold under an
Nguni language name, "Basintuthu" ('makes fire from smoke').  We are
trying to get them to the market for about $20.  A little optimistic but
the Mbaula coal burner is about that price when made in the
townships.

We are doing OK on the briquette making system but are of
course struggling to get them ignited without kindling.

There is only one coconut palm tree in Swaziland, at
the Matata shop outside Big Bend.  I convinced Stephan to give me the
husks and after a little trying, managed to get some clean secondary
combustion from that wretched fuel using a locally produced Basintuthu
stove. 

There is so much husk material where you are just lying
around.  I think we should briquette it (which I did not try) and use
secondary combustion stoves to burn it.  It is pretty much as clean as
burning charcoal it the temps are high and the price would be rock
bottom  .  The (recently) late Peter Forbes was intending to
introduce a stove from us to Moçambique that was designed to burn coconut
husks efficiently.  You have huge amounts of wasted fuel lying around in
Moç because of a lack of a stove that can burn it properly.  As far as I
know it is only burned in huge smoking piles against a large 3-legged
pot.

Yesterday I put up a page on our website on the briquette we
are developing for production in the Orange Free State starting in
November.  That system is suited to use the soft inner part of the
husk.  The outside has a lot of energy in it and that burns well without
a problem.

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
(w) (00268) 518-4194 and 518-5016 +FAX
<FONT
size=2>www.newdawn-engineering.com
and if you are having trouble with that site (it might be
Mac-hostile, sorry Richard) you can try
<FONT color=#ff00ff
size=2>cr201099-a.bloor1.on.wave.home.com
(no www in front of that one)  It is only on line part
of the day but it has a very fast
connection

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sun Sep 9 14:51:44 2001
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010907143454.01a44310@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010909102828.00c36f00@pop3.norton.antivirus>

Scott,

Thank you for your introduction.

The Biomass Conference of the Americas is a biennial series that started in
1993, organized primarily by US and Canadian government agencies with a
strong Brazilian flavor. As you can see from the conference program it
takes in all topics and attracts a wide audience.

The list of papers and posters is a 29 page pdf file found at:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/ConfSessions.pdf

I find few topics specifically focused on stoves or cooking. Dan Kammen's
group is presenting papers on Zimbabwe in sessions 1 (Residues/Resource
Analysis) and 10 (Community and Stakeholders). Nepal appears in Session 30
(Bioenergy and Development). There are wood pellet presentations in
Sessions 10 (Denmark) and 29 (Biomass Properties and Preparation, Austria).

Due to the simultaneous presentation of so many topics it has always been a
challenge to arrange a discussion of "stoves," "gasification," or even a
discussion devoted to these CREST email lists. In the past we've had stoves
discussion while standing around posters presented by Ron Larson, Tom Reed
and others. Poster presentations follow each main session. Session 1 occurs
Tuesday morning. Sessions 29 and 30 occur Thursday morning.

Another possibility is to gather around a "Stoves" table for lunch. It is
common to see people emerge from a morning session and move to the same
table at lunch.

For future conferences I think we can get the program committee to
entertain sessions on Stoves, Carbon and the use of the Internet for
bioenergy communications. Meanwhile the real work of this list is probably
best exchanged at forums like the ones held in Kenya and India.

Papers. We have discouraged posting papers directly to this list for two
reasons: some members have very slow connections due to limited bandwidth;
and, attachments often carry viruses. I have discussed the ability to post
electronic preprints, etc. with CREST. I hope to have that capability soon.
Suggestions are always welcome.

See you in Orlando.

Regards,

Tom Miles

 

At 12:10 AM 9/9/01 -0600, Scott Haase wrote:
>I will be attending. My contact info is as follows:

Thomas R Miles tmiles@trmiles.com
T R Miles, TCI Tel 503-292-0107
1470 SW Woodward Way Fax 503-292-2919
Portland, OR 97225 USA

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sun Sep 9 15:12:27 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: New Dawn Enrgineering products - re Ron's questions
Message-ID: <014901c138fe$4864d1a0$43e80fc4@home>

 

Dear Ron

>1.  Back in
1995, I worked for 5 months in Harare and saw and admired
>the Tso-Tso stove that you have been working
with.  I had one modified
>to become a charcoal-making stove, but had
little time to test it or get it
>shown around.
We have people using unmodified Basintuthu stoves (single) with charcoal
and it is wonderful.  We are using bigger air holes than Hancock's but the
same number of them.

>I am pleased that you think it might be
manufactured for $20.
It is going to be difficult.  The Mbaula (coal burner) is made from
paint can and floor mop bucket rejects from a company in Johannesburg. 
There are only so many rejects so mass implementation is not possible even for
the coal burning units.  They are essentially a poorly constructed coal
stove that gets at least some secondary combustion going.  They are being
promoted by the Mid Rand Municipal Council. It is partial combustion and
everyone is raving about how much less they smoke.  They can be improved a
lot more with tinker training only.  At least it is a start.  The coal
smoke from Johannesburg townships is appalling.  It blocks the highways at
5PM.

>What lifetime is found for the competing $20
coal stove?
No idea.  We hope for 4 or 5 years with wood/briquettes.

> What is the
reasons that your briquettes are square?
Thin edges and easier to make lots at a time.  The hole is to promote
rapid drying and rapid pre-heating when being burned.

>Your baking ovens are square...[?]
Nope.  The fire grate is round.

>Are they fired one level high?
Nope.  As deep as possible to preheat the top
ones on the way down.  Very important.  I don't want any smoke/CO
emerging.

>...most or all of the flame being in the
central hole.
Nope.  Most is on the outside though they burn
all over when hot enough.

>It appears that
the  "holey" briquettes are completely pyrolyzed before the
>resultant "charcoal" begins to be
consumed.
That I have not seen.  Charcoaling is
normally the result of insufficient to air to burn properly.  We have to
burn fuel at a rate of about 10 grammes per second to get 2.5 KW.  Choking
the air reduces the heat output _rate_ whether or not it give more total heat by
the end of its life.  Trying to burn them through the centre hole only
would explain that pyrolyzing effect.  I have doubts about the combustion
efficiency of a briquette that can't burn on the outside, also about the ability
of the cook to control the heat output rate with air control when the area being
burned is increasing with time - exactly the opposite of what is required in
cooking.  

I am very interested to hear about the fire inside
the hole heating up the 'opposite side' to speed initial
combustion.

>Anything more you can supply from your
experience would be helpful
Probably - not sure.  One bite at a
time.  I am not all that experienced though my path has been quite
different from what I see you guys talking about.   I wish I had
a CO meter.

>Do you think we
will ever see human-powered extruders for briquettes like
>you, Richard, and Paul have been
investigating?
For lignin-bound briquettes, I don't think that is a possibility.  I
assisted with the installation of a German one in Butterworth in '82 and it has
WAY too much power requirement to be done by hand.  That place gave away
the resulting logs and it still failed BTW.  They went back to chucking the
sawdust into the furnace to get rid of it.  The unit cost $80.000.

>We have had
considerable discussion on this list about lightweight insulative
>bricks.
That is very interesting.  There is a product
from coal combustion called silicon spheres or something like that. They can be
added to cement and fire cement to increase insulation considerably and decrease
weight.  The spheres are very small and are formed in the combustion
process.  Ash Resources in Johannesburg sells them, graded by size if you
want.  I considered using them in our bread baking ovens but they wern't
good enough insulators and too small to seal in as loose fill.

>...a lot of interest recently on the use of a
lot of paper being added to the
>clay before firing (giving added strength to a
lighter product).
Sawdust is probably better if the pore size is not a problem.  Pulping
the paper fine enough would be a problem, manually.  There are people
making concrete hollow blocks using sawdust and it saves a lot of weight - about
35%.

>...your
hand-powered mixers with internal chains rather than blades.  Was this your
own innovation?
Yes.  We are going to use 3 similar mixers to pulp paper for the big
sawdust briquette operation starting in Nov.

>...and your work
with wire product manufacturing equipment.
It is the fence making and soil-cement brick
machines that keep the company afloat.  We actually make a lot of things
that are not on the website when people ask for them.

>Can you make grills and similar from larger
wires?
We do not have a weaving technology /per se/ as a regular item.  I
have made years ago a means for producing woven steel wire mesh like that used
by builders to screen their sand.  It has not gone anywhere but the mesh is
very expensive so producing it in 3x6 foot sheets as a home industry is quite
viable.  Certainly a 10mm hole size could be hand made even when the wire
is hard (450+MPa).  I am not so sure about making grates.  Nail wire
perhaps.  A company makes them here commercialy and they are really cheap
(less than $1 for a 480x365mm).

>Please feel free to tell us of the importance
of shops like yours
>for stove manufacture.
Low cost stoves have to be produced by someone who
is already making a large number of other products to justify the investment in
tooling.  It would scare you to see how fast a modern production plant can
be.  They can produce 1 per second!  We want to get someone to make
10,000 per day for us eventually but that is years away.  It the product
are not very efficient, good looking and convenient, the market won't
develop.  Hancock found people wouldn't buy them until he put them into a
large cardboard box which added a lot to the cost.

>Do you believe that smaller or larger scales
will be your more serious competitors?
Interesting question.  I think smaller scale will compete only when
people have been educated /en masse/ at high school on how stoves work. 
Big scale production so far has concentrated on anthracite stoves in which
people burned wood very inefficiently.  They are no threat at all because
those guys don't understand combustion either.  We have quite a pathetic
situation on our hands.  Coal stoves are promoted as a status item in Swazi
rural areas.  Every family that buys one and gives up cooking over an open
fire doubles their wood consumption because they are such inappropriate pieces
of technology.

>...I saw a nice similar operation in Masvingo
(Zimbabwe) - but think it is out of business now.
That may have been Dave Hancock hisself when he was at the GTZ technical
school there.

I hope that is enough fuel for thought for today.

Best regards
Crispin

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sun Sep 9 15:12:59 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Reply to Ron Larsen 9-9-01
Message-ID: <014801c138fe$462282c0$43e80fc4@home>

 

Dear Ron

Thanks for the compliment on the website - it is entirely
homegrown and coded manually by myself and my son Jeremy who is a robotics
technologist working in Toronto.  He assists on the side and saves the day
from time to time.  The second website is identical.

You ask a lot of questions and I am not sure how I can
handle them all!

First, we are not doing very well 'in the business' in that
making money from selling things to poor people is not how to make a commercial
success of things.  We j-u-s-t get by and have a mortgage hanging overhead
that gets bigger with time.  We deal primarily with hand operated machinery
as a choice.  This has been going on since May '84.  Before that I was
getting a national AT unit going in Transkei, RSA.  Before that I was in
rural water supply in Swaziland.  We make about 30 different products as
and when people ant them.  Our staff complement is 16.

The Comercial End of A.T. Development

There is a continuous conflict between people wanting to do
innovative things and the commercial world of getting them 'out there'. 
One problem is that there are many people who are paid to compete against small
private companies like ours.  Kenya, Zimbabwe and Botswana are places where
this happens. 

It is usually felt that information should be freely handed
around 'to help the cause' and many innivations have been extended to the poor
and needy through that process.  When I was busy inventing things every few
weeks that would employ more people in Transkei's rural areas, I found that NO
commercial company was willing to produce comercial quantities of a new device
unless huge numbers were ordered.  There was no realistic method of getting
things out of the workshop and into the stores.  I found this
distressing and decided to start a company that would do exactly that, even if
it was for one thing only - a fence making machine called the Netwire
Board.

Well, 17 years later, we still can't find partners who are
willing to invest in such a venture.  Activity and funding seems to fall to
'academic' institutions which are devoted mostly to getting people a Masters
Degree in rural development (etc) and private companies intent on squeezing
every last nickle out of some or other 'innovation'.

When development organizations look for some way to get their
latest technology of the hour (usually about 24 months behind the current
state of the art) they go looking for a 'small private local company' to
manufacture things.  Being one of those companies attracts the ire of those
who are paid by universities and NGO's and parastatals to do similar things
because it looks like someone is making money out of 'their' work.  It is
no sweat off their brows to point at a private company and accuse them of
protectionism (of information) and sucking the poor dry by overcharging and all
that that entails.  In reality, the most successful small AT
'manufacturers' in the field or at grassroots level are actually making a living
selling consulting services to development organizations and thereby subsidizing
the actual manufacturing process which is done only on a cost-recovery basis to
keep everyone happy.  It is, in a sense, flim-flam because it is not really
viable nor reproduceable.

This bind in which the development 'industry' finds itself
means that in the longer run, virtually NO useful appropriate technology
invention or process makes it out of the hands of the development set and into
the greater commercial world.  Every once in a while you will see an
entrepreneur drop out of 'development' and into 'industry' to commercialize a
new kind of vacuum cleaner, for example, or bread box, but there is plainly
little to point to that comes from the NGO circle and makes its appearance as a
'normal' (non-AT) product on the supermarket shelf.

The relevance of this to stoves is critical.  There is
almost no point getting a perfect stove invented if it cannot be made and
distributed commercially.  Overhead-funded NGO's can't be relied on to do
something like that forever.  I greatly favour get-up-and-running money for
a new product, but it has to be done in a way that a major impact is eventually
made.

I have noticed in the few brief days on this list that there
are people from both private and non-private employment and that there is a lot
of mutual respect regarding issues I have openly described.  I am hoping to
learn from you all how to participate in these discussions in a way that does
not take bread from the mouths of contributors and still results in those in
need benefitting fully from the results of the work of people dedicated to
improving the lives of people on this plant.

I am not proud of my lack of fiancial success after so many
years of trying hard.  I wish I were either better businessman or
fundraiser!  What I have managed to do is to press on even when the major
section of a development field has gone off on what I consider a tangent. 

 
Are Stovers On the Right Path?

I fear that the message I read about combustion and
briquetting is one a path I don't consider optimal.  A lot of work is put
into making biofuels available and there isn't enough application of known
combustion methods being applied to burning the precious fuel.  I was
reading a modelling magazine from the UK the other day and they have 'efficiency
test' events the way people have car rallys and boat races.  I appreciated
the request a couple of days ago for a standard burning test so we can make
comparisons across the world without having to physically to get
together.

A great many of the stoves and burning devices touted for
poor people on the net, including most of those shown at the conference in India
do not have provision for secondary combustion built into them.  The
comparison between briquettes with one or more hole doesn't mean much if at the
same time no secondary combustion is provided for.  People are gathering
fuel (biomass) and making briquettes and wasting far too much of the heat
through incomplete burning.  For example, burning 1 grame of butane to CO
yields about 40 MJ of heat.  Burning it to CO2 yields 65% more.  The
loss through incomplete burning of biofuels costs Africa hundreds of millions of
tons of wood each year, and that wood was collected by women mostly, with better
things to do with their time than trudge up and down finding it.  Dave
Hancock (now in Malawi) was right on the money when he introduced the Tsotso
stove in the mid-80's.  He produced about 30,000 as far as I
heard.

I humbly suggest that together we first look closely at
improving the fuel efficiency of stoves - mud, clay, steel and open - to promote
savings, convenience, rapid starting and power control by applying the well
known principles of primary and secondary combustion.  <FONT
size=2>Everyone can benefit from this - private manufacturers and those
promoting home-built and micro-enterprise manufactured units.

Ron, I will reply to some of your question in another
message.

Many thanks
Crispin in Ezulwini Valley

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sun Sep 9 23:32:45 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:01 2004
Subject: Fw: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
Message-ID: <02de01c139a6$7f40ebc0$b769e1cf@computer>

Oops - sent this by mistake to Scott only.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
To: <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: Who is going to the Biomass conference?

> Stovers going to the biomass conference:
>
> I just wanted to add a bit more on Scott - in addition to what he has
> said below. First I consider him to be the most knowledgeable person in
> Colorado on the resource base that we have for biomass. Seek Scott out
for
> how to make estimates of sustainable yields.
>
> Second is his knowledge about root fuels (gourds) - again something
> where I percieve him to be especially knowledgeable.
>
> He has a deep affection I know for South Africa and is anxious to be
> going back. We have talked about the possibility to have a stoves meeting
> at the "Rio + 10 conference" to be held in South Africa in 2002. I hope
> those interested will seek Scott out at the Biomass conference to see if
> that makes sense.
>
> Besides the above - Scott is not only smart - he is a nice guy who is
> fun to be around. Wish I was going also.
>
> Thanks also to Tom Miles for explaining more. Maybe we can have a
> stoves session at the next meeting.
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Haase <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
> To: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>; Apolinário J Malawene
> <ajmalawene01@hotmail.com>; Bob and Karla Weldon <bobkarlaweldon@cs.com>;
Ed
> Francis <cfranc@ilstu.edu>; <stoves@crest.org>; Tsamba--Alberto Julio
> <ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz>; <clucas33@yahoo.com>; <clucas@zebra.uem.mz>
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:10 AM
> Subject: RE: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
>
>
> > I will be attending. My contact info is as follows:
> >
> > Scott Haase
> > McNeil Technologies
> > 143 Union Blvd., Suite 900
> > Lakewood, CO 80228
> > www.mcneiltech.com
> >
> > Most of my time is spent working on biomass energy and biomass resource
> > utilization issues in the western U.S. I follow the discussion here on
the
> > stoves list, but do not post much. As I spent four years working in
> Lesotho
> > and South Africa, I am very interested in what goes on in the SADC
> > countries, especially in the areas of renewable energy in general, and
> > biomass in particular.
> >
> > I will post additional information on my current work areas at the
bottom
> of
> > this post.
> >
> > Now a little on the conferences. I have been going to these conferences
> > since about 1994. I would say most of the papers are on the high end of
> > technology applications and research - mainly in the U.S and Europe. But
I
> > think smaller-scale discussions are on the increase. I have always found
> the
> > conferences to be very interesting and useful, both for technical
> knowledge,
> > social interaction, and developing new business and professional
contacts.
> > But that is from the perspective of working for a US based consulting
> > company with most of my work being focused in this country, and mostly
> based
> > on U.S. government funding and programs. So the opinions on usefulness
may
> > differ by others on this list. Whether stovers could get together
> informally
> > depends on if anyone organizes something or wants to seek others out.
This
> > could be accomplished here or by word of mouth and diligent searching at
> the
> > conference. If there is anyone from southern Africa attending, it would
be
> > great to meet you.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Summary of Current Work Focus:
> >
> > I am interested in U.S. applications for some of the recent topics here
on
> > briquettes, charcoal making and pressed log manufacturing. Actually I am
> > interested in meeting with people (or emailing) and discussing any
> > technologies or concepts for using biomass here in the U.S. for small
> scale
> > energy projects. These can be either private sector (new business
creation
> > and end-use applications such as on-site co-gen) or community based
> > applications such as converting schools to biomass heating technologies.
> The
> > biomass will be mainly generated in the form of chipped small diameter
> trees
> > and brush produced through forest fire prevention thinning programs.
> >
> > The major issue that I - and many others - are looking at now is related
> to
> > the threat of catastrophic wildfire facing many western forests,
> especially
> > within the Pine and Pine/Fir zones of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico,
> Nevada,
> > California, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho and eastern Oregon and
> > Washington. This region covers millions and millions of acres of forest
> and
> > contains millions of tons of biomass that could be turned into energy
and
> > other higher value products.
> >
> > Over the past 100 years there has been a tremendous build-up of fuel
loads
> > in most forests of the western U.S., and in states like Florida. These
> > conditions have been created through an interaction of heavy logging and
> > over grazing in the late 1800s, near-total fire suppression for the last
> > century, recent droughts and warming climate conditions, beetle and
> disease
> > outbreaks, and general land management policies of the country. If
anyone
> on
> > this list will be in FL, I encourage you to look at the amount of fuel
in
> > the wooded areas surrounding Orlando.
> >
> > Most western forests now have an abundance of uniform, crowded stands of
> > small diameter trees - sometimes 400-500 and more per acre as opposed to
> > historic conditions that may have had 40-50 per acre and a much greater
> mix
> > of small to very large trees in mixed canopy conditions. The stands are
> > even-aged, closed-canopy and in many cases contain trees that are dead
or
> > dying due to disease, drought, and insect outbreaks.
> >
> > The current response by land management agencies to the fire
threat/small
> > diameter issue is to treat the land, (either by mechanical thinning,
> > prescribed burning or a combination thereof) in an effort to reduce the
> fuel
> > load. The effort is aimed at both ecology and fire threat reduction. It
is
> > hoped that these programs will "restore" the forest to conditions that
are
> > more in line with how they looked in the mid 1800s and will be more
> > resilient to fire, and not as prone to totally destructive canopy fires
> that
> > we have seen lately.
> >
> > Currently, more and more material is being mechanically cut and then
> either
> > removed or piled and burned. Removal is very expensive, and there are
very
> > few markets for the small diameter trees. The agencies prefer to burn
the
> > trees on site because it is cheaper. But there is such a build up of
fuel
> > that the real potential exists for the controlled burns to get away
> (witness
> > the Los Alamos fire last year that started as a controlled burn in a
> > National Park and turned into a 40,000 acre burn that destroyed hundreds
> of
> > homes and threatened a nuclear facility). So the benefits of new markets
> for
> > this low-value, high-cost biomass could be considerable, but they are
> > challenging.
> >
> > Energy is one potential market that could be developed, but the
> applications
> > need to be as high value as possible to offset the costs of fuel. I
> believe
> > there are opportunities in areas such as electricity production ranging
> from
> > very small - 15 kW - up to 20 MW. Other areas include central
> > heating/cooling systems for schools and commercial buildings, pelleting,
> > pressed logs, charcoal manufacture, briquettes, utility co-firing,
> > distributed generation and manufacture of liquid biofuels.
> >
> > Any ideas are welcome. If you have a viable technology and are looking
for
> > potential new markets or pilot project locations, please contact me and
we
> > can discuss additional ideas.
> >
> > Scott Haase
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul S. Anderson [mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:46 PM
> > To: Apolinário J Malawene; Bob and Karla Weldon; Ed Francis;
> > stoves@crest.org; Tsamba--Alberto Julio; clucas33@yahoo.com;
> > clucas@zebra.uem.mz
> > Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
> >
> >
> > Stovers,
> >
> > I would think that those going to the Biomass conference would be
posting
> > to the list serve their names and points of contact.
> >
> > And those who have gone before, what will the conference be like? How
> > much on the high end of technology, and how much on the "appropriate"
end?
> >
> > Do "stovers" get together?
> >
> > We know that Tom Reed and Richard Stanley are going. (Richard, we want
a
> > copy of your paper / presentation posted to the listserve, please.)
> > Sorry, I do not see how I could attend.
> >
> > Ron L. or Tom, could you repost the conference information to the
> listserv,
> > please.
> >
> > Are there other conferences equally or more important for stovers to
> > attend? Or is this the big one?
> >
> > Paul
> > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> >
> >
> > -
> > Stoves List Archives and Website:
> > http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> >
> > Stoves List Moderators:
> > Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> > Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> > Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> >
> > List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> > List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> >
> > Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > -
> > Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
> >
> >
> > -
> > Stoves List Archives and Website:
> > http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> >
> > Stoves List Moderators:
> > Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> > Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> > Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> >
> > List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> > List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> >
> > Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > -
> > Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
> >
> >
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From shaase at mcneiltech.com Mon Sep 10 00:13:50 2001
From: shaase at mcneiltech.com (Scott Haase)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
In-Reply-To: <02de01c139a6$7f40ebc0$b769e1cf@computer>
Message-ID: <CGEJLLCPLGFOGLIEDIPEGEOACIAA.shaase@mcneiltech.com>

 

thanks for the kind words Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Larson [mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 9:13 PM
To: stoves@crest.org
Subject: Fw: Who is going to the Biomass conference?

Oops - sent this by mistake to Scott only.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
To: <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: Who is going to the Biomass conference?

> Stovers going to the biomass conference:
>
> I just wanted to add a bit more on Scott - in addition to what he has
> said below. First I consider him to be the most knowledgeable person in
> Colorado on the resource base that we have for biomass. Seek Scott out
for
> how to make estimates of sustainable yields.
>
> Second is his knowledge about root fuels (gourds) - again something
> where I percieve him to be especially knowledgeable.
>
> He has a deep affection I know for South Africa and is anxious to be
> going back. We have talked about the possibility to have a stoves meeting
> at the "Rio + 10 conference" to be held in South Africa in 2002. I hope
> those interested will seek Scott out at the Biomass conference to see if
> that makes sense.
>
> Besides the above - Scott is not only smart - he is a nice guy who is
> fun to be around. Wish I was going also.
>
> Thanks also to Tom Miles for explaining more. Maybe we can have a
> stoves session at the next meeting.
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Haase <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
> To: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>; Apolinário J Malawene
> <ajmalawene01@hotmail.com>; Bob and Karla Weldon <bobkarlaweldon@cs.com>;
Ed
> Francis <cfranc@ilstu.edu>; <stoves@crest.org>; Tsamba--Alberto Julio
> <ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz>; <clucas33@yahoo.com>; <clucas@zebra.uem.mz>
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:10 AM
> Subject: RE: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
>
>
> > I will be attending. My contact info is as follows:
> >
> > Scott Haase
> > McNeil Technologies
> > 143 Union Blvd., Suite 900
> > Lakewood, CO 80228
> > www.mcneiltech.com
> >
> > Most of my time is spent working on biomass energy and biomass resource
> > utilization issues in the western U.S. I follow the discussion here on
the
> > stoves list, but do not post much. As I spent four years working in
> Lesotho
> > and South Africa, I am very interested in what goes on in the SADC
> > countries, especially in the areas of renewable energy in general, and
> > biomass in particular.
> >
> > I will post additional information on my current work areas at the
bottom
> of
> > this post.
> >
> > Now a little on the conferences. I have been going to these conferences
> > since about 1994. I would say most of the papers are on the high end of
> > technology applications and research - mainly in the U.S and Europe. But
I
> > think smaller-scale discussions are on the increase. I have always found
> the
> > conferences to be very interesting and useful, both for technical
> knowledge,
> > social interaction, and developing new business and professional
contacts.
> > But that is from the perspective of working for a US based consulting
> > company with most of my work being focused in this country, and mostly
> based
> > on U.S. government funding and programs. So the opinions on usefulness
may
> > differ by others on this list. Whether stovers could get together
> informally
> > depends on if anyone organizes something or wants to seek others out.
This
> > could be accomplished here or by word of mouth and diligent searching at
> the
> > conference. If there is anyone from southern Africa attending, it would
be
> > great to meet you.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > Summary of Current Work Focus:
> >
> > I am interested in U.S. applications for some of the recent topics here
on
> > briquettes, charcoal making and pressed log manufacturing. Actually I am
> > interested in meeting with people (or emailing) and discussing any
> > technologies or concepts for using biomass here in the U.S. for small
> scale
> > energy projects. These can be either private sector (new business
creation
> > and end-use applications such as on-site co-gen) or community based
> > applications such as converting schools to biomass heating technologies.
> The
> > biomass will be mainly generated in the form of chipped small diameter
> trees
> > and brush produced through forest fire prevention thinning programs.
> >
> > The major issue that I - and many others - are looking at now is related
> to
> > the threat of catastrophic wildfire facing many western forests,
> especially
> > within the Pine and Pine/Fir zones of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico,
> Nevada,
> > California, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho and eastern Oregon and
> > Washington. This region covers millions and millions of acres of forest
> and
> > contains millions of tons of biomass that could be turned into energy
and
> > other higher value products.
> >
> > Over the past 100 years there has been a tremendous build-up of fuel
loads
> > in most forests of the western U.S., and in states like Florida. These
> > conditions have been created through an interaction of heavy logging and
> > over grazing in the late 1800s, near-total fire suppression for the last
> > century, recent droughts and warming climate conditions, beetle and
> disease
> > outbreaks, and general land management policies of the country. If
anyone
> on
> > this list will be in FL, I encourage you to look at the amount of fuel
in
> > the wooded areas surrounding Orlando.
> >
> > Most western forests now have an abundance of uniform, crowded stands of
> > small diameter trees - sometimes 400-500 and more per acre as opposed to
> > historic conditions that may have had 40-50 per acre and a much greater
> mix
> > of small to very large trees in mixed canopy conditions. The stands are
> > even-aged, closed-canopy and in many cases contain trees that are dead
or
> > dying due to disease, drought, and insect outbreaks.
> >
> > The current response by land management agencies to the fire
threat/small
> > diameter issue is to treat the land, (either by mechanical thinning,
> > prescribed burning or a combination thereof) in an effort to reduce the
> fuel
> > load. The effort is aimed at both ecology and fire threat reduction. It
is
> > hoped that these programs will "restore" the forest to conditions that
are
> > more in line with how they looked in the mid 1800s and will be more
> > resilient to fire, and not as prone to totally destructive canopy fires
> that
> > we have seen lately.
> >
> > Currently, more and more material is being mechanically cut and then
> either
> > removed or piled and burned. Removal is very expensive, and there are
very
> > few markets for the small diameter trees. The agencies prefer to burn
the
> > trees on site because it is cheaper. But there is such a build up of
fuel
> > that the real potential exists for the controlled burns to get away
> (witness
> > the Los Alamos fire last year that started as a controlled burn in a
> > National Park and turned into a 40,000 acre burn that destroyed hundreds
> of
> > homes and threatened a nuclear facility). So the benefits of new markets
> for
> > this low-value, high-cost biomass could be considerable, but they are
> > challenging.
> >
> > Energy is one potential market that could be developed, but the
> applications
> > need to be as high value as possible to offset the costs of fuel. I
> believe
> > there are opportunities in areas such as electricity production ranging
> from
> > very small - 15 kW - up to 20 MW. Other areas include central
> > heating/cooling systems for schools and commercial buildings, pelleting,
> > pressed logs, charcoal manufacture, briquettes, utility co-firing,
> > distributed generation and manufacture of liquid biofuels.
> >
> > Any ideas are welcome. If you have a viable technology and are looking
for
> > potential new markets or pilot project locations, please contact me and
we
> > can discuss additional ideas.
> >
> > Scott Haase
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul S. Anderson [mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:46 PM
> > To: Apolinário J Malawene; Bob and Karla Weldon; Ed Francis;
> > stoves@crest.org; Tsamba--Alberto Julio; clucas33@yahoo.com;
> > clucas@zebra.uem.mz
> > Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
> >
> >
> > Stovers,
> >
> > I would think that those going to the Biomass conference would be
posting
> > to the list serve their names and points of contact.
> >
> > And those who have gone before, what will the conference be like? How
> > much on the high end of technology, and how much on the "appropriate"
end?
> >
> > Do "stovers" get together?
> >
> > We know that Tom Reed and Richard Stanley are going. (Richard, we want
a
> > copy of your paper / presentation posted to the listserve, please.)
> > Sorry, I do not see how I could attend.
> >
> > Ron L. or Tom, could you repost the conference information to the
> listserv,
> > please.
> >
> > Are there other conferences equally or more important for stovers to
> > attend? Or is this the big one?
> >
> > Paul
> > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> >
> >
> > -
> > Stoves List Archives and Website:
> > http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> >
> > Stoves List Moderators:
> > Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> > Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> > Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> >
> > List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> > List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> >
> > Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > -
> > Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
> >
> >
> > -
> > Stoves List Archives and Website:
> > http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> >
> > Stoves List Moderators:
> > Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> > Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> > Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> >
> > List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> > List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> >
> > Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > -
> > Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
> >
> >
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rbailis at socrates.berkeley.edu Mon Sep 10 01:08:03 2001
From: rbailis at socrates.berkeley.edu (Robert Bailis)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010907143454.01a44310@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <3B9C4C16.894F0B47@socrates.berkeley.edu>

Hi Stovers,

I've been a silent stoves-list observer since late 1999 and I wanted to
chime in that I'll also be attending and presenting a poster at the
Biomass Conference. I'm a student in the Energy and Resources Group at
UC Berkeley and have been working in Zimbabwe since last year on a
sawmill woodwaste utilization project. We are funded by the Shell
Foundation and looking into grid tied and/or decentralized power
production from the sawmill chips, dust, bark, and off-cuts. We're also
thinking a bit about hh fuel production and ways to use waste-based
energy to create sustainable livelihoods. Unfortunately, we have
currently suspended operations in Zimbabwe because of the political
situation but hope to be able to return there soon. In the meantime we
intend to redirect our efforts to East Africa, where we have a number of
institutional ties from previous work that we've done.

As Scott Haase mentioned, it would make a lot of sense for stove-list
folks in attendance at the conference to take advantage of the
opportunity and get together for some informal discussions. I look
forward to meeting some of you,

Rob

My contact information is:

Rob Bailis
Energy and Resources Group: University of California - Berkeley
310 Barrows Hall #3050
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Fax: 510-642-1085
Lab: 510-634-2243
lab www site: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael

"Paul S. Anderson" wrote:

> Stovers,
>
> I would think that those going to the Biomass conference would be posting
> to the list serve their names and points of contact.
>
> And those who have gone before, what will the conference be like? How
> much on the high end of technology, and how much on the "appropriate" end?
>
> Do "stovers" get together?
>
> We know that Tom Reed and Richard Stanley are going. (Richard, we want a
> copy of your paper / presentation posted to the listserve, please.)
> Sorry, I do not see how I could attend.
>
> Ron L. or Tom, could you repost the conference information to the listserv,
> please.
>
> Are there other conferences equally or more important for stovers to
> attend? Or is this the big one?
>
> Paul
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Mon Sep 10 12:54:21 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Conference in South Africa--Rio+10
In-Reply-To: <02de01c139a6$7f40ebc0$b769e1cf@computer>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010910113453.01a50c20@mail.ilstu.edu>

At 09:12 PM 9/9/01 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
> We have talked about the possibility to have a stoves meeting
> > at the "Rio + 10 conference" to be held in South Africa in 2002. I hope
> > those interested will seek Scott out at the Biomass conference to see if
> > that makes sense.

Called the Johannesburg 2002 Summit, you can get info at
http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/

And the main topics include sustainable development as well as the environment.

The official dates are 2 to 11 September 2002, but there are pre-summit
events around the world that have already started.

I had the good fortune to be at the Rio 1992 Summit (not as an official
delegate). The public events included a massive "fair" of booths with
NGO's and others showing their activities. I enjoyed being there very much.

I will be in southern Africa in August 2002, and I just might try to talk
my dean and dept chairperson into letting me arrive late back to my classes
in Illinois. I think that we (stoves list members) could probably have a
"presence" there.

Ron, Thanks for mentioning the meeting.

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Mon Sep 10 13:25:17 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Heatlogs
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010909131928.01a45550@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010910122124.01a52cd0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

I have had a brief side conversation with John Olsen about his
"Heatlogs."   Quite interesting.

So I decided to post his recent reply regarding the adjective
"smokeless."

As I wrote earlier to Stoves, we can learn a great deal from the
commercial side of the biomass fuels activities.

At 09:50 AM 9/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
Hi Paul

Here is some info from thn UK which might be of
interest.
We have lots of machines in South Africa, making
"Heatlogs" and the "Barbecue" fuel.

The product is made only from waste biomass material,
some sawmills being managed under FSC Certification.  There are no
additives of any kind, e.g. when made from sawdust/woodwaste, the Heatlog
is 100% wood.

 Heatlog is a smokeless fuel under SA Section 20 Air Pollution
Prevent Act 45 and promotional leaflets have been cleared by Weights and
Measures standards.

 The burning characteristics give a higher radiant heat output than
Household 2 Coal and Coalite over a three-hour burning test period.

 Heatlog, being dense, does not spark or spit when burning and burns
down to 0.35%  ash (itself a good wood ash).

Heatlog mixes with any other fuel, in particular wood, which it helps
burn if unseasoned.  It is clean to handle and ideal for open fires,
stoves, boilers and solid fuel cookers.
regards
JohnO

JohnO wrote:

... with the
words.."please try this SMOKELESS FUEL, called a
"HeatLog",
made from sawdust  ( or Biomass of that particular country) and if
you like it,

Somebody will jump on the term "smokeless".  So
I will ask first:  What are your scientific statistics on the
"smokeless" part?  You should post that to the Stoves
list.  __I__ am NOT a qualified observer on that important
issue.   This is a BIG issue.

Also answer to the list about burning the logs vertically, not
horizontally.
As ever,

Paul

 

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State
University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice: 
309-438-7360;  FAX:  309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

 

From cree at dowco.com Mon Sep 10 15:08:15 2001
From: cree at dowco.com (John Olsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: cost of Heatlog production. Canada.
Message-ID: <00bc01c13a2b$653d3780$618457d1@olsen>

 

Hi,
I have resisted the publishing
of this, but, I now do, for information and discussion..
<FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2>E&OE..
One
SHIMADA <FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2> machine cdn$85,500 or lease at <FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2>approx cdn $1800.00 per
month.
(t<FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2>rnsportation, taxes, duties, set-up, etc.,
not included)
Canadian
Dollars...
Dry
sawdust and/or
Biomass not included in the figures, as mostly this is a negative cost, where
the waste is delivered free or charged for.



<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
by John Olsen


<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
Sept 10 2001

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
production per hour
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
tonnes
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
0.50

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
labour
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
$38.47

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
rent
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
$2.79

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
power
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
$15.61

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
admin
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
$2.23

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
insurance
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
$2.23

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
maintenance
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
$2.79

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
depreciation
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
$11.15

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
packaging
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
$22.97

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
total
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
$98.24

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
Heatlogs
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
per tonne
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
1,200

<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
Heatlogs
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
cost each
<FONT color=#000000 face="Times New Roman"
size=3>
<P
align=right>$0.08

From CAVM at aol.com Mon Sep 10 16:29:01 2001
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Briquettes materials
Message-ID: <d5.c1259a1.28ce7b94@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/6/2001 10:15:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
costaeec@kcnet.com writes:

<< The attitude seems to be that it is too costly or they would rather use
manual labor to keep the people busy. Perhaps that is true or perhaps they
are simply not ready to accept modern technology or a project which reeks of
'capitalism'. I am not qualified to determine that, but it seems primitive
to admit a serious problem exists, yet refuse to accept the proven
solutions.

Many areas simply don't have the materials or demand to justify mechanical
systems, but with a little creativity in calculating transportation costs
(or simply the difficulty) of bulk materials versus densified materials the
equations look quite different.

We can't help with methods of hand making small quantities of briquettes,
but I think it might be quite shocking to some to see how close your
situations are to justifying modern automation.

BOTTON LINE: With certain supply and demand conditions in place, you can
provide cheap cooking and heating fuel AND make a profit!

Glad to help, if we can.

Jim Dunham, CEO
Enviro-Energy Corp. >>

Jim, You must be on the road or I know you would have had a lot more to say
on this thread. One thought I have is that your technique might find favor
if you and I worked together wherein I provide the energy to make you
equipment operate more cheaply than it might using electrical power from the
grid (assuming there even is a grid).

We can make wood gas, methane gas, vegetable oil fuels, etc. to operate an
internal combustion engine for power, for example.

Neal Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc
CAVM@AOL.com

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From tombreed at home.com Mon Sep 10 17:04:27 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Stove meeting at the Biomass conference?
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010907143454.01a44310@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <006701c13a3a$3fc258a0$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear Stove List, and Dee Schaffer:

I hope all who are going to the "5th Biomass of the Americas" conference
will send me a note and I'll see if I can arrange a room and time for us to
all meet in person.

Please let me know if you are coming and I'll assemble a list.
Dr. Thomas Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558;
tombreed@home.com; www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bailis" <rbailis@socrates.berkeley.edu>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: Who is going to the Biomass conference?

> Hi Stovers,
>
> I've been a silent stoves-list observer since late 1999 and I wanted to
> chime in that I'll also be attending and presenting a poster at the
> Biomass Conference. I'm a student in the Energy and Resources Group at
> UC Berkeley and have been working in Zimbabwe since last year on a
> sawmill woodwaste utilization project. We are funded by the Shell
> Foundation and looking into grid tied and/or decentralized power
> production from the sawmill chips, dust, bark, and off-cuts. We're also
> thinking a bit about hh fuel production and ways to use waste-based
> energy to create sustainable livelihoods. Unfortunately, we have
> currently suspended operations in Zimbabwe because of the political
> situation but hope to be able to return there soon. In the meantime we
> intend to redirect our efforts to East Africa, where we have a number of
> institutional ties from previous work that we've done.
>
> As Scott Haase mentioned, it would make a lot of sense for stove-list
> folks in attendance at the conference to take advantage of the
> opportunity and get together for some informal discussions. I look
> forward to meeting some of you,
>
> Rob
>
> My contact information is:
>
> Rob Bailis
> Energy and Resources Group: University of California - Berkeley
> 310 Barrows Hall #3050
> Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
> Fax: 510-642-1085
> Lab: 510-634-2243
> lab www site: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael
>
> "Paul S. Anderson" wrote:
>
> > Stovers,
> >
> > I would think that those going to the Biomass conference would be
posting
> > to the list serve their names and points of contact.
> >
> > And those who have gone before, what will the conference be like? How
> > much on the high end of technology, and how much on the "appropriate"
end?
> >
> > Do "stovers" get together?
> >
> > We know that Tom Reed and Richard Stanley are going. (Richard, we want
a
> > copy of your paper / presentation posted to the listserve, please.)
> > Sorry, I do not see how I could attend.
> >
> > Ron L. or Tom, could you repost the conference information to the
listserv,
> > please.
> >
> > Are there other conferences equally or more important for stovers to
> > attend? Or is this the big one?
> >
> > Paul
> > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> >
> > -
> > Stoves List Archives and Website:
> > http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> >
> > Stoves List Moderators:
> > Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> > Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> > Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> >
> > List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> > List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> >
> > Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > -
> > Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From elk at wananchi.com Tue Sep 11 01:49:16 2001
From: elk at wananchi.com (elk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: refrigeration (again)
Message-ID: <005401c13a85$2d99cc80$d740083e@default>

 

One point that I'm still fuzzy on with these
charcoal refrigerators that use water evaporation for cooling:

Is there a metal box inside the refrigerator? Or
does the evaporatively cooled air flow right through- as permitted by the gaps
between the charcoal pieces making up the walls?

Oh- and another question: how would algae (slime)
growth be discouraged? Anything I've allowed to remain wet of damp and exposed
to the air at the same time has always proven to be a fertile substrate for the
green slime.

........ I wonder if porous volcanic pumice would
be as good or better than charcoal for this purpose- the main object is to
provide the maximum surface area possible, no?

As soon as I've cleared up these questions I'm
going to start building one. I've a small trout farm on Mt. Kenya that's well
off the grid & could use some refrigeration. As it's located on the
rain shadow side of this 17,000 ft. extinct volcano, the air is very dry, so I
should expect maximum cooling.

Thanks in advance;

elk


--------------------------Elsen L.
Karstadelk@wananchi.com<A
href="http://www.chardust.com">www.chardust.comNairobi
Kenya


From rstanley at legacyfound.org Tue Sep 11 02:12:21 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Reply to Ron Larsen 9-9-01
In-Reply-To: <014801c138fe$462282c0$43e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <3B9DAA71.26A728BE@legacyfound.org>

Crispin, Ron and other stovers,

As member of the stoves list I cannot help but be swayed by your
(Crispin's) experience and resulting observations you shared with Ron
Larson, about the machinations of the "development game". I feel
exactly the same but came to the conclusion that the likes of us should
become trainers and facilitatrors of producers and designers, rather
than producers / designers ourselves. For me, the latter has proved a
good way to starve for most of teh reasons you shared. The former
approach on the other hand, allows me to get paid for building capacity
in others. As a small fry in the game I have to preform cause if I mess
it up I am stuffed . Words travels far more quickly of ones failures
than successes.

I have yet to successfully open your website and am even more
interested in doing so. Ours is www.legacyfound.org but it does nto
scratch the surface on our history or orientation in technical
innovation. Like you imply that does not in itself sell in our line of
work.

Ref the briquettes, you are right about a standard of testing but
frankly with our briquettes it matters hugely how they are oriented and
what device they are placed in to see real preformance. I am seeing some
form of secondary air effect but am no expert in that . All I know is
that 250 gm (2 briquettes, each 4" dia 3" height) aligned properly
(vertical hole with plenty of air from beneath and lots of space for
ashes to fall freely to tthe bottom without blocking the air flow) in a
stove design which allows for a 6 to 8 " combustion chamber/chimney
above the briquette--- will cook as well as 1.2kg of wood in an open
fire or even tossed into same stove. How this is interpreted for
secondary air I have yet to understand. Most of our burning goes through
the hole . The first 15 - 20 minutes see licking flames, followed by a
burning ember stage for teh remaining 20 minutes or so, depending upon
mixtures used and burning device.

Hope to see your website and meet up someday.

Sincerely,

Richard Stanley
Ashand Oregon,
US

PS., We will be repsenting our story at the biomass conference on
thursday all morning in session no. 29

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From dstill at epud.net Tue Sep 11 02:58:19 2001
From: dstill at epud.net (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: rocket stoves
Message-ID: <006701c13b06$d8492780$6a15210c@default>

 

Dear ELK,

I'm back in touch with Mr Richard Henya, who has a small
"factory" making Rocket type stoves. His address is p.o. box 98
Kikuyu

his email is
<A
href="mailto:njagu@sservices.africaonline.com">njagu@sservices.africaonline.com

If you ever get a chance to stop by, I'm sure
that he'd appreciate it. You could check out a Rocket and give us your
impressions? I'm trying to help him with funding...but most of my contacts
except for several friends with ITDG are in Central America.

Best,

Dean
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">

From BIT at worldonline.co.za Tue Sep 11 04:50:28 2001
From: BIT at worldonline.co.za (B.I.T.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: subscription info
Message-ID: <LPBBLLGMCNJBCLEAKFGMOEADCEAA.BIT@worldonline.co.za>

Hello, could you please unsubscribe me from the list.

Many thanks

Brett

GLOBAL ACCESS SA
Branmer International Trading

Tel : (+2711) 465 4041
Fax: (+2711) 467 3606
globalaccess@branmer.com

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From elk at wananchi.com Tue Sep 11 05:36:52 2001
From: elk at wananchi.com (elk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Rocket Stove
Message-ID: <00fe01c13a9f$68e90fc0$d740083e@default>

 

Hello Mr. Henya;

Dean Still has suggested I drop by sometime to see
your Rocket stove.

Better yet- if it's portable, could I obtain one
somehow and conduct a few tests on it? I'm happy to buy one, and if you get in
touch with me on 882375 or 884436 (Tamfeeds/Chardust Ltd.).

If you don't object, I would like to post the
results of some simple boiling-efficiency tests on the "Stoves" internet
list.


I hope to speak with you soon;

--------------------------Elsen L.
Karstadelk@wananchi.com<A
href="http://www.chardust.com">www.chardust.comNairobi
Kenya


From reecon at mitsuminet.com Tue Sep 11 08:36:44 2001
From: reecon at mitsuminet.com (reecon)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Change of adress
Message-ID: <001b01c13abc$aa946880$285f31d4@ras>

Dear Stovers,

Kindly take note that Mr. Musungu has changed his adress as follows:

wycliffe.musungu@kam.co.ke

Regards,

Anna Ingwe Musungu.

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Tue Sep 11 11:35:41 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Tragedy in USA
Message-ID: <005601c13ad3$940ee880$aad51ac4@jmdavies>

Dear Friends in the USA,

I am devastated by the tragedy that has befallen your country.

My heartfelt condolences are shared with the victims of these cowardly
attacks.

May God Bless You during this time of tribulation.

John Davies.
South Africa.

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Sep 11 11:38:18 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Regional "Action Groups" for Stovers - Proposed
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010911092531.01a575d0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

Our stoves-member Ashley makes a good suggestion, that I expand to call:

Regional "Action Groups" for Stovers - Proposed

>Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 09:03:05 +0200
>From: shuster <shuster@zol.co.zw>
>
>would it not be a good idea to develop a small data base of people,co,orgs
>within the sadc
>region who are involved with renewable energy,stoves,gasifiers etc
>
>just a thought
>regards
>ashley
>gasafrica
>shuster@zol.co.zw

Ashley's idea of facilitating regional contacts has special merit as we try
to move to more "action" to follow up on the technical expertise that is
already evident in the Stoves group.

(Tom Reed could comment on whether the gassification list serve might have
additional people with interests in the various regions.)

My conception of this is NOT to split Stoves people, but to promote more
direct contact between those who live near each other or who will travel to
regional areas.

SADAC (southern Africa) has been mentioned. There we have:

3 people in Mozambique - Apolinario, Tsamba, Carlos
1 in Illinois who goes to the area regularly - Paul
1 in Swaziland - Crispin
1 in Zimbabwe - Ashley
(and others physically present there)
(and others active in an area but who are NOT YET on the Stoves list at
all. A good example is Crispin with decades of experience but who just
joined the Stoves list this month.)

And others who have had experience there
And others who would be willing to make the trip there at the right time.

And how many would be active for:
India,
Latin America
Andean
Middle Am (Mex and Central Am)
just to name a few areas.

All of this would be pretty much "ad hoc", but some positive results might
come forth.
What do others think?

Ron, as moderator, could you make some comment on geographic concentrations
with in the 300+ members of the Stoves listserv?

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Tue Sep 11 12:33:35 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Regional "Action Groups" for Stovers - Proposed
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010911092531.01a575d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <3B9E3BF1.442FEE72@legacyfound.org>

Stovers,

ref; the idea being floated to form regional acion groups,

Lest we fall prey to the same paradigym of administrative logic and resulting
obfuscation of the pre internet era, perhaps we might want to improve not so
much geographic links as we would technical and cultural linkages--according
to actual need. My colleagues in Cusco have far more in common with those in
Kangemi, or outstation Haiti than would academic researchers development
project managers and small business people and villagers in any one of these
localities.

Add to this the fact that we are in this group only a tiny minority in the
popultion of actual makers users and experimenters in existence. The real
stove makers and users constitute a wealth of knowledge and experience (albeit
unarticulated in quantitative terms ) that we need to remain open to. Classic
foreign Aid organisations have applied this logic in the wake of the AT
movement in the early 80's 'and again in the subsequent WID movement and
Renewable Energy Movement .

All it really accomplished was to employ a large number of studies and
evaluations . The real populus was really never engaged and to this day still
remains well outside these good attempts. Development for whom with whom ?

Still , the intent is sound and ethical and we are now equipped with the
phenomena of the internet. The question I therefore pose is, how can we
use these tools to ensure involvement and interactivity without incurring
confusion and management overheads we have thus far avoided. How do we engage
more depth of understanding about the actual practices and communicate these
amongst other actual users. not "to" or "for " them but amongst them.

Is it interest networks or geographic networks we are talking about ?

Richard Stanley
legacyfound.org.

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From stoves at ecoharmony.com Tue Sep 11 12:44:10 2001
From: stoves at ecoharmony.com (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Regional "Action Groups" for Stovers - Proposed
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010911092531.01a575d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <LMBBLPFKOFEHFDOEMIGHIEEJDJAA.stoves@ecoharmony.com>

Dear Stovers, Hi Paul

> >would it not be a good idea to develop a small data base of
> >people,co,orgs
> >within the sadc
> >region who are involved with renewable energy,stoves,gasifiers etc
> >

There are a number of exisiting regional 'stoves' groupings (including the
Biomass Users Networks), and a few databases. One I'm involved with can be
found at http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/org.php, an initiative of the Shell
Foundation and the HEDON Household Energy Network
(http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/). Some overview graphs of the organisations in
the database is available at http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/orgstats.php. HEDON
members can also search an additional database of 210 organisations/workers
in Household Energy.

One other project of relevance is the SPARK-NET project, which will be
starting in the next month or two with the support of the European
Commission (a small amount of information on the project is available on
http://ecoharmony.com/project.shtml, and which will soon be expanded. This
project will focus on in the SADC region and East Africa.

Regards
Grant

-------------------
Grant Ballard-Tremeer, visit ECO Ltd on the web at http://ecoharmony.com
64C Fairholme Road, W14 9JY, London
Tel +44-(0)20 7386 7930
Fax +44-(0)870 137 2360
eMail grant@ecoharmony.com
HEDON Household Energy Network http://www.ecoharmony.net/hedon/
-------------------

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Tue Sep 11 22:19:32 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Regional "Action Groups" for Stovers - Proposed
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010911092531.01a575d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <000301c13b30$ff6d32a0$d7ed6541@computer>

Stovers:

The following is in response to the question from Paul Anderson asking:

> Ron, as moderator, could you make some comment on geographic
concentrations
> with in the 300+ members of the Stoves listserv?
>
1. We are at about 220 members. To get these I send a message to the
address: stoves-list@crest.org. Whether persons other than the list
coordinators (or list members) will get a response, I do not know (hope
someone will let us all know). Of these shown, about 80 are listed with a
country label (few in the US have such a label, and none on this list). The
largest number of those 80 are from India (9). But many from other
countries are not so labeled - such as Alex English (Canada) and Elsen
Karstad (Kenya) - whose addresses are (I presume) shown below. Including
Alex and Elsen I can only identify another 10 un-labeled individuals by
country - as most of us do not identify our countries as we write in. There
are possibly a dozen Indians in total

2. Generally, this list has not given out the addresses of list members,
although anyone can read the archives and probably thereby get about 30-40%
of the list member names and e-mail addresses. I think we should maintain
that policy. If one doesn't speak up, their name/address will not be given
out by me

3. But even the list coordinators (and I think the operators of "crest") do
not know the names that go with the e-mail addresses - so this is another
complexity.

4. But to answer your question (that - maybe - all of you can do as well),
after India, there are probably at least four members each from Australia,
Brazil, Canada, Finland, Kenya, Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
(I have to guess a little to get that list - by assigning some like Alex and
Elsen to countries.) Rogerio Miranda maintains a "Bioenergia"
Spanish-speaking list which seems to have a lot of discussion on stoves.

5. In the US, there are about a dozen list members near my own home in
Golden - and probably at least four each in California and Oregon. Golden
has so many because it is the home of the US National Bioenergy Center (at
the National Renewable Energy Lab - NREL).

6. In Southern Africa, you said:

> My conception of this is NOT to split Stoves people, but to promote more
> direct contact between those who live near each other or who will travel
to
> regional areas.
>
> SADAC (southern Africa) has been mentioned. There we have:
>
> 3 people in Mozambique - Apolinario, Tsamba, Carlos
> 1 in Illinois who goes to the area regularly - Paul
> 1 in Swaziland - Crispin
> 1 in Zimbabwe - Ashley
> (and others physically present there)
> (and others active in an area but who are NOT YET on the Stoves list at
> all. A good example is Crispin with decades of experience but who just
> joined the Stoves list this month.)

(Ron) I can also see at least 2 others in Uganda, 3 in Zambia, at
least 1 more in Zimbabwe, and one in Malawi. Including people like Scott
Haase (Golden, Lesotho, and South Africa), we can probably add another 3-4
persons with an interest in that region (my 5 months in Zimbabwe means I
would try to return) - and maybe the "Rio+10" meeting is a good time for
Johannesburg.

If you (Paul) or others want to get the names of people near you - I can
probably figure out a way to get you all together. I certainly can endorse
the concept of regional stoves meetings. I got a lot out of both the
Nairobi (at least half of it - as I had a drug-interaction problem, which
Elsen helped me through) and Pune meetings. The two Dr. Karves can attest,
however, that there is a lot of work involved - so be realistic in
volunteering to lead something.

I also was at Rio for a few days in 1992 and endorse your (Paul's)
earlier description of what a circus will be occuring in South Africa in
2002. Back in 1981, I spent the full tiime at a Nairobi UN conference on
renewables. A big part of that conference was a competitive jiko
"cook-off".

I hope those in Southern Africa will keep up the discussion - and tell
us whether it looks reasonable to try to get together again in late 2002 in
Johannesburg.

A good place to follow up on is from Grant Ballard Tremeer today:

>One other project of relevance is the SPARK-NET project, which will be
>starting in the next month or two with the support of the European
>Commission (a small amount of information on the project is available on
>http://ecoharmony.com/project.shtml, and which will soon be expanded. This
>project will focus on in the SADC region and East Africa.

I write this after a day of listening to a day full of the New
York/Washington bombings. Thanks to John Davies for expressing his
sympathies.

Ron

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From dstill at epud.net Tue Sep 11 23:23:11 2001
From: dstill at epud.net (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Rocket Stove
Message-ID: <001a01c13b20$787c7860$4d15210c@default>

 

Dear Elsen and Richard,

I'm looking for funding for Mr. Henya's production of stoves
(Modern Jua Kali Designs, P.O. Box 98, Kikuyu, Kenya) and it's great that you
both will hopefully be seeing eachother and experimenting with his stove.
Publishing the results on the stove list is a good idea. Elsen is a stove expert
along with Mr Henya, and his findings and opinions will be valuable to others. I
hope that your test will include a sheet metal cylinder, a skirt, around the
pot. This increases the fuel efficiency and it will result in a higher test
score. The gap between the skirt and the pot should be small, maybe 3/16"?
Elsen might also want to compare the 'smokiness' of the simple stove versus a
open fire? Any pictures that you could send me or Alex English would be very
valuable. One of these days, I hope to send you the in field emissions test kit
that Dr Mark Bryden and others are working on!

Hope that you both have a great meeting and successful
testing!

Best,

Dean
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">

From woodcoal at mailbox.alkor.ru Wed Sep 12 02:17:51 2001
From: woodcoal at mailbox.alkor.ru (Yudkevich Yury)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: To the friends and colleagues in USA
Message-ID: <002101c13b52$30a28980$723fefc3@a1g0h5>

To the friends and colleagues in USA,
The Russian TV has interrupted usual transfers at 7 o'clock in the evening
(it is 10 o'clock in the morning in New-York) and has switched on CNN. We
have learned about the mean and severe act in your cities. Many inhabitants
of St. Petersburg came to consulate USA and have brought flowers and candle.
Everyone, whom I know, are indignant and shudder. I send the words of
sympathy and grief.
Yury Yudkevich, (Russia)

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Wed Sep 12 06:58:55 2001
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Briquettes materials and briquetting process
In-Reply-To: <d5.c1259a1.28ce7b94@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000701c13b7c$1d154040$3a82c7cb@vsnl.net.in>

Dear stovers,
just yesterday I was visiting a biomass briquette manufacturer in my
province in India. He makes briquettes having a calorific value of 4000+
kcal/kg and sells them at prices lower than fuelwood. He has an automated
manufacturing plant and he sells his fuel to bulk users like brick kilns. I
wanted him to make briquettes for domestic use. His present fuel is too
dirty to be used in a household stove, because he uses pressmud from sugar
factories ( very high sulphur and phosphorus content) as well as poultry
droppings (bad smell) and such other waste material, which he can get very
cheaply. He was even toying with the idea of using solid human excreta. He
explained to me that the cleaner waste biomass either costs more or is used
by the concerned industry itself (e.g. groundnut shells and sugarcane
bagasse). Other types of bio- and agro-wastes are too widely scattered (e.g.
stems of cotton, pigeonpea, safflower, sunflower, dry leaves of sugarcane
etc.). The collection and transport of such widely dispersed material to the
place of manufacture would drive the cost of briquettes too high. We also
considered using his present briquettes as domestic fuel in stoves with a
chimney. At present he sends truckloads to bulk consumers. But establishing
sales depots in villages and arranging to sell the briquettes in kilogramme
quantities would again drive the cost too high. After spending almost a day
with him in dicussing various possibilities, I came to the conclusion, that
the biomass based briquettes for domestic use can be produced at an
affordable price only if the production is done locally at the scale of a
cottage industry, using the locally available agrowaste. Electricity is not
always available in such localities, and therefore the emphasis is more on
hand operated machines and processes.
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: <CAVM@aol.com>
To: <costaeec@kcnet.com>; <psanders@ilstu.edu>; <ajmalawene01@hotmail.com>;
<stoves@crest.org>
Cc: <BobKarlaWeldon@cs.com>; <cfranc@ilstu.edu>; <ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz>;
<clucas33@yahoo.com>; <clucas@zebra.uem.mz>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Briquettes materials

> In a message dated 9/6/2001 10:15:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
> costaeec@kcnet.com writes:
>
> << The attitude seems to be that it is too costly or they would rather use
> manual labor to keep the people busy. Perhaps that is true or perhaps
they
> are simply not ready to accept modern technology or a project which reeks
of
> 'capitalism'. I am not qualified to determine that, but it seems
primitive
> to admit a serious problem exists, yet refuse to accept the proven
> solutions.
>
> Many areas simply don't have the materials or demand to justify
mechanical
> systems, but with a little creativity in calculating transportation costs
> (or simply the difficulty) of bulk materials versus densified materials
the
> equations look quite different.
>
> We can't help with methods of hand making small quantities of briquettes,
> but I think it might be quite shocking to some to see how close your
> situations are to justifying modern automation.
>
> BOTTON LINE: With certain supply and demand conditions in place, you can
> provide cheap cooking and heating fuel AND make a profit!
>
> Glad to help, if we can.
>
> Jim Dunham, CEO
> Enviro-Energy Corp. >>
>
>
> Jim, You must be on the road or I know you would have had a lot more to
say
> on this thread. One thought I have is that your technique might find
favor
> if you and I worked together wherein I provide the energy to make you
> equipment operate more cheaply than it might using electrical power from
the
> grid (assuming there even is a grid).
>
> We can make wood gas, methane gas, vegetable oil fuels, etc. to operate an
> internal combustion engine for power, for example.
>
> Neal Van Milligen
> Kentucky Enrichment Inc
> CAVM@AOL.com
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Wed Sep 12 07:00:04 2001
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
In-Reply-To: <CGEJLLCPLGFOGLIEDIPEGEOACIAA.shaase@mcneiltech.com>
Message-ID: <000801c13b7c$1e4b0120$3a82c7cb@vsnl.net.in>

Dear Scott,
I am interested in root fuels. There are a number of plants that store food
in their roots and since they are non-edible, they are largely ignored. But
as a source of biomass fuel they could certainly play a big role. We have a
developed a technique of growing plants on above-ground sand-beds, which
makes harvesting of the roots very easy. Currently we are using this method
for root drugs, but we can also try it on root fuels. Since you are working
on gourd roots, and because a number of gourd species are grown by farmers
in India, I would like to know the species that you found useful as fuel. I
had only heard of buffalo gourd, but are there any others? What do the
buffalo gourd roots consist of? Is it starch?
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Haase <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: Who is going to the Biomass conference?

>
> thanks for the kind words Ron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Larson [mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 9:13 PM
> To: stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Fw: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
>
>
> Oops - sent this by mistake to Scott only.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
> To: <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 9:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
>
>
> > Stovers going to the biomass conference:
> >
> > I just wanted to add a bit more on Scott - in addition to what he
has
> > said below. First I consider him to be the most knowledgeable person in
> > Colorado on the resource base that we have for biomass. Seek Scott out
> for
> > how to make estimates of sustainable yields.
> >
> > Second is his knowledge about root fuels (gourds) - again something
> > where I percieve him to be especially knowledgeable.
> >
> > He has a deep affection I know for South Africa and is anxious to be
> > going back. We have talked about the possibility to have a stoves
meeting
> > at the "Rio + 10 conference" to be held in South Africa in 2002. I hope
> > those interested will seek Scott out at the Biomass conference to see if
> > that makes sense.
> >
> > Besides the above - Scott is not only smart - he is a nice guy who
is
> > fun to be around. Wish I was going also.
> >
> > Thanks also to Tom Miles for explaining more. Maybe we can have a
> > stoves session at the next meeting.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Scott Haase <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
> > To: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>; Apolinário J Malawene
> > <ajmalawene01@hotmail.com>; Bob and Karla Weldon
<bobkarlaweldon@cs.com>;
> Ed
> > Francis <cfranc@ilstu.edu>; <stoves@crest.org>; Tsamba--Alberto Julio
> > <ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz>; <clucas33@yahoo.com>; <clucas@zebra.uem.mz>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:10 AM
> > Subject: RE: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
> >
> >
> > > I will be attending. My contact info is as follows:
> > >
> > > Scott Haase
> > > McNeil Technologies
> > > 143 Union Blvd., Suite 900
> > > Lakewood, CO 80228
> > > www.mcneiltech.com
> > >
> > > Most of my time is spent working on biomass energy and biomass
resource
> > > utilization issues in the western U.S. I follow the discussion here on
> the
> > > stoves list, but do not post much. As I spent four years working in
> > Lesotho
> > > and South Africa, I am very interested in what goes on in the SADC
> > > countries, especially in the areas of renewable energy in general, and
> > > biomass in particular.
> > >
> > > I will post additional information on my current work areas at the
> bottom
> > of
> > > this post.
> > >
> > > Now a little on the conferences. I have been going to these
conferences
> > > since about 1994. I would say most of the papers are on the high end
of
> > > technology applications and research - mainly in the U.S and Europe.
But
> I
> > > think smaller-scale discussions are on the increase. I have always
found
> > the
> > > conferences to be very interesting and useful, both for technical
> > knowledge,
> > > social interaction, and developing new business and professional
> contacts.
> > > But that is from the perspective of working for a US based consulting
> > > company with most of my work being focused in this country, and mostly
> > based
> > > on U.S. government funding and programs. So the opinions on usefulness
> may
> > > differ by others on this list. Whether stovers could get together
> > informally
> > > depends on if anyone organizes something or wants to seek others out.
> This
> > > could be accomplished here or by word of mouth and diligent searching
at
> > the
> > > conference. If there is anyone from southern Africa attending, it
would
> be
> > > great to meet you.
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > Summary of Current Work Focus:
> > >
> > > I am interested in U.S. applications for some of the recent topics
here
> on
> > > briquettes, charcoal making and pressed log manufacturing. Actually I
am
> > > interested in meeting with people (or emailing) and discussing any
> > > technologies or concepts for using biomass here in the U.S. for small
> > scale
> > > energy projects. These can be either private sector (new business
> creation
> > > and end-use applications such as on-site co-gen) or community based
> > > applications such as converting schools to biomass heating
technologies.
> > The
> > > biomass will be mainly generated in the form of chipped small diameter
> > trees
> > > and brush produced through forest fire prevention thinning programs.
> > >
> > > The major issue that I - and many others - are looking at now is
related
> > to
> > > the threat of catastrophic wildfire facing many western forests,
> > especially
> > > within the Pine and Pine/Fir zones of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico,
> > Nevada,
> > > California, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho and eastern Oregon
and
> > > Washington. This region covers millions and millions of acres of
forest
> > and
> > > contains millions of tons of biomass that could be turned into energy
> and
> > > other higher value products.
> > >
> > > Over the past 100 years there has been a tremendous build-up of fuel
> loads
> > > in most forests of the western U.S., and in states like Florida. These
> > > conditions have been created through an interaction of heavy logging
and
> > > over grazing in the late 1800s, near-total fire suppression for the
last
> > > century, recent droughts and warming climate conditions, beetle and
> > disease
> > > outbreaks, and general land management policies of the country. If
> anyone
> > on
> > > this list will be in FL, I encourage you to look at the amount of fuel
> in
> > > the wooded areas surrounding Orlando.
> > >
> > > Most western forests now have an abundance of uniform, crowded stands
of
> > > small diameter trees - sometimes 400-500 and more per acre as opposed
to
> > > historic conditions that may have had 40-50 per acre and a much
greater
> > mix
> > > of small to very large trees in mixed canopy conditions. The stands
are
> > > even-aged, closed-canopy and in many cases contain trees that are dead
> or
> > > dying due to disease, drought, and insect outbreaks.
> > >
> > > The current response by land management agencies to the fire
> threat/small
> > > diameter issue is to treat the land, (either by mechanical thinning,
> > > prescribed burning or a combination thereof) in an effort to reduce
the
> > fuel
> > > load. The effort is aimed at both ecology and fire threat reduction.
It
> is
> > > hoped that these programs will "restore" the forest to conditions that
> are
> > > more in line with how they looked in the mid 1800s and will be more
> > > resilient to fire, and not as prone to totally destructive canopy
fires
> > that
> > > we have seen lately.
> > >
> > > Currently, more and more material is being mechanically cut and then
> > either
> > > removed or piled and burned. Removal is very expensive, and there are
> very
> > > few markets for the small diameter trees. The agencies prefer to burn
> the
> > > trees on site because it is cheaper. But there is such a build up of
> fuel
> > > that the real potential exists for the controlled burns to get away
> > (witness
> > > the Los Alamos fire last year that started as a controlled burn in a
> > > National Park and turned into a 40,000 acre burn that destroyed
hundreds
> > of
> > > homes and threatened a nuclear facility). So the benefits of new
markets
> > for
> > > this low-value, high-cost biomass could be considerable, but they are
> > > challenging.
> > >
> > > Energy is one potential market that could be developed, but the
> > applications
> > > need to be as high value as possible to offset the costs of fuel. I
> > believe
> > > there are opportunities in areas such as electricity production
ranging
> > from
> > > very small - 15 kW - up to 20 MW. Other areas include central
> > > heating/cooling systems for schools and commercial buildings,
pelleting,
> > > pressed logs, charcoal manufacture, briquettes, utility co-firing,
> > > distributed generation and manufacture of liquid biofuels.
> > >
> > > Any ideas are welcome. If you have a viable technology and are looking
> for
> > > potential new markets or pilot project locations, please contact me
and
> we
> > > can discuss additional ideas.
> > >
> > > Scott Haase
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul S. Anderson [mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:46 PM
> > > To: Apolinário J Malawene; Bob and Karla Weldon; Ed Francis;
> > > stoves@crest.org; Tsamba--Alberto Julio; clucas33@yahoo.com;
> > > clucas@zebra.uem.mz
> > > Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
> > >
> > >
> > > Stovers,
> > >
> > > I would think that those going to the Biomass conference would be
> posting
> > > to the list serve their names and points of contact.
> > >
> > > And those who have gone before, what will the conference be like?
How
> > > much on the high end of technology, and how much on the "appropriate"
> end?
> > >
> > > Do "stovers" get together?
> > >
> > > We know that Tom Reed and Richard Stanley are going. (Richard, we
want
> a
> > > copy of your paper / presentation posted to the listserve, please.)
> > > Sorry, I do not see how I could attend.
> > >
> > > Ron L. or Tom, could you repost the conference information to the
> > listserv,
> > > please.
> > >
> > > Are there other conferences equally or more important for stovers to
> > > attend? Or is this the big one?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Stoves List Archives and Website:
> > > http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> > > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> > >
> > > Stoves List Moderators:
> > > Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> > > Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> > > Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> > >
> > > List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> > > List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> > > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > > List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> > >
> > > Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > > -
> > > Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> > > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> > >
> > > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Stoves List Archives and Website:
> > > http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> > > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> > >
> > > Stoves List Moderators:
> > > Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> > > Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> > > Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> > >
> > > List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> > > List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> > > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > > List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> > >
> > > Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > > -
> > > Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> > > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> > >
> > > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From CAVM at aol.com Wed Sep 12 07:24:27 2001
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:02 2004
Subject: Plants for fuel
Message-ID: <115.47ac8cd.28d09ef4@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/12/2001 5:57:43 AM Central Daylight Time,
adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in writes:

<<... Since you are working
on gourd roots, and because a number of gourd species are grown by farmers
in India, I would like to know the species that you found useful as fuel. I
had only heard of buffalo gourd, but are there any others? ...
A.D.Karve >>

The Buffalo gourd and other plants have more value than the fuel from the
roots or stems. By growing a fuel crop you may be able to extract oil from
the seeds and provide meal for feed from the residue also. The oil can be
burned in one of the innovative stove designs discussed here or used to
substitute for diesel fuel in an engine. It can even be made into biodiesel
fuel. The engine could provide mechanical and electrical power, or the fuel
could be sold.

This still leaves the dried biomass for combustion fuel if you desire.

Even in saline environments, such as near the coast, plants suitable for oil
production exist which also provide fodder and fuel.

Cornelius A. Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc.
byproduct processors
CAVM@AOL.com

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Wed Sep 12 09:38:09 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Fw: Regional "Action Groups" for Stovers - Proposed
Message-ID: <010701c13b8f$cbc91680$ed69e1cf@computer>

Stovers:

1. This is (partly) to forward a useful message from Ray Wijawardene.
Ray attended the Pune conference and contributed greatly on the subject of
dedicated forestry and the advantages of coppicing. Ray is a retired former
successful businessman with background in small mechanized agricultural
equipment sold around the world. There was some discussion of having a
followup to the Pune Conference in Sri Lanka - which the participants agreed
would think would be great except for the political unrest in that country.

2. This allows me to add to yesterday's message that we shouldn't
limit our attention to the places where we have more than 4 or more people -
that was an arbitrary number. I know of at least one more strong stove
worker in Sri Lanka - who is not (I think) one of the two other stove list
members in Sri Lanka. D.M. Punchibanda had a wonderful presentation in
Pune of an electrically powered pyrolysis stove, rather like that which Tom
Reed has described here.

3. Another example of a strong list member is Dr. Yury - who sent in a
message of condolences today (thanks, Yury). Although Yury is our only
list member from Russia, he works in a country and laboratory with a strong
history of applicable work. Many of us would love to have a stove meeting
in St. Petersburg.

4. The place I would most like to have a stoves meeting is China -and we
have (I think) no list members there. However, during the recent Shell
Foundation dialogs, we heard that there are (were?) more than 1200 stoves
researchers in that country.

5. This raises the issue of how meetings will tie in with the Shell
Foundation work. I'll send another message on that topic.

Ron

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Wijewardene <raywije@eureka.lk>
To: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: Regional "Action Groups" for Stovers - Proposed

> Ron and Paul... Please add to your list the (at-least) two of us in Sri
> Lanka. Largely silent, but very concerned and involved. Many thanks...
> Ray Wijewardene (raywije@eureka.lk)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Larson [mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 7:58 AM
> To: Paul S. Anderson; stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Re: Regional "Action Groups" for Stovers - Proposed

<snip>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Wed Sep 12 10:14:23 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Proposal: Stoves Reference volume / data base
In-Reply-To: <d5.c1259a1.28ce7b94@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010912083514.01a54530@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

Excellent comments like the one below should be collected in a reference
volume!! It would be cross-referenced into the "Dire poverty" and
"Automated manufacturing" and "India" categories.

Unfortunately, making such a reference volume (even using the archives of
Stoves as the only source of information) would be no small task, and would
take a reasonably educated person (who knows something about stoves issues)
to make the initial selection.

As I sit here and wonder how it could be done (maybe it should NOT be
done?), I imagined these possibilities:

1. A volunteer from the Stoves list of members. (Unlikely. We are all
so busy.)
2. A university student (What is the payback for that student?)
3. A funded project (we always think of Shell Foundation, don't we?) (is
this the priority for the limited available funding?)
And then it hit me:

4. Proposal:(?): We need inexpensive but competent labor for this. USA
and Europe labor (students) is still too costly. But is there someone (a
Stoves reader) in India or another developing country who could find (and
supervise) a competent student who would do the job for pay? And what
would it possibly cost? The results are to all be on the Internet. No
printing on paper.

I volunteer to help with the PAY to the person. And I am sure that others
will also contribute IF Ron and A.D. and others agree that the task is
worthwhile.

(to Tom Reed: Should the same be done for gassification information from
that listserve??)

I already help with financial support (pay for work done) to some students
in Mozambique for may mapping work. So I know how low the costs could be
IF the right combination of person, computer access, etc. could be
done. But I am not there in MZ enough to supervise the efforts.

(Carlos Lucas in Maputo: What do you think? Any candidates?)

Would be great if a post-graduate student could partially fund his or her
studies doing this kind of work. MZ does not have post-graduate programs
yet, so I again look to India and other countries for the person-power.

(Crispin: If the very modest funding was available for the workers, would
you have interest and conditions to supervise this?)

Also, there might be more than one person doing this. For example, I would
prefer to fund the work that relates to low-density locally-made
cottage-industry biomass briquettes, (with or without holes). Someone
else might want to encourage the automated side of things. And others on
the scientific data collection (emissions, etc.), And the "social
marketing" and "training" that Richard appropriately points out as being
so important.

Hey folks, This is just a wild idea that could cost me a thousand dollars.

NOTE: I do NOT envision payments to any of us who should be doing the
supervision.

Would such a reference collection be worth the time, effort and money?
Does something already exist that fills this information niche?
If it should be done, who would do it (supervision, funding) that is not
already on the Stoves list?

Opinions please (to the whole list, not to me as an individual, because
this is quickly getting beyond what I could tackle.)

Paul

At 09:15 AM 9/12/01 +0530, A.D. Karve wrote:
>Dear stovers,
>just yesterday I was visiting a biomass briquette manufacturer in my
>province in India. He makes briquettes having a calorific value of 4000+
>kcal/kg and sells them at prices lower than fuelwood. He has an automated
>manufacturing plant and he sells his fuel to bulk users like brick kilns. I
>wanted him to make briquettes for domestic use. His present fuel is too
>dirty to be used in a household stove, because he uses pressmud from sugar
>factories ( very high sulphur and phosphorus content) as well as poultry
>droppings (bad smell) and such other waste material, which he can get very
>cheaply. He was even toying with the idea of using solid human excreta. He
>explained to me that the cleaner waste biomass either costs more or is used
>by the concerned industry itself (e.g. groundnut shells and sugarcane
>bagasse). Other types of bio- and agro-wastes are too widely scattered (e.g.
>stems of cotton, pigeonpea, safflower, sunflower, dry leaves of sugarcane
>etc.). The collection and transport of such widely dispersed material to the
>place of manufacture would drive the cost of briquettes too high. We also
>considered using his present briquettes as domestic fuel in stoves with a
>chimney. At present he sends truckloads to bulk consumers. But establishing
>sales depots in villages and arranging to sell the briquettes in kilogramme
>quantities would again drive the cost too high. After spending almost a day
>with him in dicussing various possibilities, I came to the conclusion, that
>the biomass based briquettes for domestic use can be produced at an
>affordable price only if the production is done locally at the scale of a
>cottage industry, using the locally available agrowaste. Electricity is not
>always available in such localities, and therefore the emphasis is more on
>hand operated machines and processes.
>A.D.Karve
>
>----- Original Message -----

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Wed Sep 12 10:27:51 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Stoves meetings and relationship to the Shell Foundation
Message-ID: <013901c13b96$baafc860$ed69e1cf@computer>

 

Stovers:

Several new thoughts on
stoves (especially regional) meetings - as raised recently by Paul
Anderson. 

1.  The stoves "world" may change
significantly here within the month as the Shell Foundation brings together a
number of stoves workers in London on October 11-13.  I know who is invited
(not necessarily coming), but I don't feel it is my place to provide that
list.   Necessarily, the organizers have to limit attendance - as they
seek guidance on how their funds should be expended.  I believe about half
of the invitees are already "stoves" list members.

2.  I presume I have been invited in part
because I can represent the "stoves" list members - and can communicate with you
all after the meeting.  I believe this
first London meeting will be very helpful - and I am delighted that Shell is
expending some airfare - not salary) funds to bring a knowledgeable stoves group
together. 

3.   There
are many people on this list who have not been part of the five weeks of intense
"Shell" dialog that ended a few weeks ago.  Therefore please feel free now
to throw in your stoves thoughts on to this "stoves" list - so those of us
who can go to that London meeting will have a better list of
priorities.  It will take you a good bit of effort to read that Shell
dialog - but for those who are interested you will have to struggle through
various choices at <A
href="http://www.shellfoundation.org">http://www.shellfoundation.org   
Look for "Sustainable Energy" and "Household Energy and Health"
especially.  Don't feel that you have to read that dialog to bring in your
ideas now, however.

4.  For instance, our list sometimes talks
about stoves emissions,  as Dean Still did today in talking about the work
of Dean Bryden's work with new emissions monitoring equipment.  It seems
clear that Shell will be wanting an emphasis on health improvements - which will
require more knowledge on our part of how to make emissions measurements
more cheaply and accurately.  I hope Dean and Mark will tell us more of
their efforts - which sounds very helpful.

5.  There is no way that Shell can fund lots
of people to go to meetings - but we might be able to talk about regional
self-financed meetings that are built around activities that Shell will
eventually fund.  Any thoughts along these lines?


Ron

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Wed Sep 12 11:45:18 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: To Crispin and other business people
Message-ID: <377dc3d74f.3d74f377dc@pmel.noaa.gov>

 

Dear Crispin,

Thank you very much for your messages. I appreciate your sharing, and
also your honesty in admitting the failures and struggles you have had.
While I have neither experience nor insights, I would like to follow up
on this discussion, because it seems critical to success in stove-
improvement. I am way, way out of my area here; but I hope you and the
other Stovers will bear with me if I ask some questions. Perhaps long-
term Stovers can point me to archives if this discussion has happened
before. Also, if this is not appropriate for Stoves list, I am happy to
hear suggestions for another forum.

I interpret the following dilemma(s) from your message (my comments in
brackets; please feel free to correct):

1. The small quantities that are appropriate for your applications
often do not promise enough profit to attract funding.
2. Working with universities is one way to accomplish development.
(That is inherently unstable because of the short tenure of students.
The money has to come from somewhere else, and might actually cost more
than funding *you*. However, there are funding mechanisms for
universities and NGOs, while small businesspeople are more often left
to their own resources. Perhaps someone can educate me here, as my
knowledge of funding for international development is approximately
nil.)
3. To make *any* money from R&D-- even just enough to stay alive--
requires some protection of information, which is seen as a hostile act
by some who are concerned about the poor. (It seems to me that it is
only "hostile" if one considers maximizing benefits to households
alone, isolated from their society.)
4. If you *do* make money, then the "big guys" swoop in and compete
with you. (Of course, this problem is rampant in U.S. culture, also;
megastores are driving multi-generation family businesses into the
ditch.)
5. Therefore, the only "acceptable" way you have found to reproduce
A.T. so far is to do it at such a low cost that it relies on (your)
goodwill. (That requires similar portions of goodwill from anyone who
wants to replicate or expand the project-- sustainable on neither
business nor personal levels.)

(By the way, some of these problems are *very* similar to ones that I
experienced in a long-term business venture-- nothing so noble as what
you are doing, though. So, while I have no solutions, I have a certain
amount of empathy; and I understand at a gut-level that the right
technology is barely the first step.)

Okay, it seems to me that solving these dilemmas is precisely the sort
of task that Shell refers to as "breaking the cycle"-- although I
didn't see these issues addressed there, for the most part. Why is
there a cycle? Are there known business solutions to any of the above
problems? For example, could (3) above be addressed by some kind of
agreement with NGOs in which a "reasonable profit" is allowed, similar
to the way power utilities have operated in the U.S.? Is there any
current thinking on innovation vs. monopoly-- perhaps inspired by the
Microsoft problem-- that can help address (4) above?

Richard Stanley wrote:
> I feel exactly the same but came to the conclusion that the likes of
> us should become trainers and facilitatrors of producers and
> designers, rather than producers / designers ourselves.

Richard, do the producers/designers that you train experience the same
problems that Crispin reported? Or is the problem then circumvented
because they are “local”?

On a more technical note:

> A great many of the stoves and burning devices touted for poor
> people on the net, including most of those shown at the conference
> in India do not have provision for secondary combustion built into
> them.

Crispin, do you find that there are enough PICs to support secondary
combustion? If so, at what temperatures?

Best,

Tami

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From shaase at mcneiltech.com Wed Sep 12 13:23:50 2001
From: shaase at mcneiltech.com (Scott Haase)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
In-Reply-To: <000801c13b7c$1e4b0120$3a82c7cb@vsnl.net.in>
Message-ID: <HDECLBADMGOMOAOECEJACEEBCAAA.shaase@mcneiltech.com>

Dear A.D. Karve,

I have not worked on the rootfuel issue in some time - about four-five years
or so. I still think the concept has merit.

We had tried to get some international funding to work on the issue in
earnest, but USAID and other donors chose not to fund the proposals we
submitted. I still have these proposals that could be dusted off, updated
and submitted again to potential donors. I am just so busy these days on
other projects that I have not had time or energy to work on the concept
again. We had a very good proposal to do some work in South Africa - we had
in-country partners lined up, SA government support from both the Department
of Minerals and Energy Affairs and the Agricultural Research Council -
Roodeplat, and a very well designed scope of work. I brought seeds to ARC in
the mid 90s for them to do a trial planting/agronomic study, but I have
never heard if these were planted or what the results were.

Actually in my mind the leading authority on the subject is Gene Shultz.
Gene was my advisor in graduate school at Washington University in St.
Louis. I think he is a member of this list (or was in the past) but I have
not seen any posts from him for quite some time. The last email address I
had for him was: geneshu@aol.com I encourage you to contact him as he may
be interested in talking to you.

The work that was done in Mexico, Arizona, New Mexico, Brazil and I think
India or Pakistan was back in the early 90s and involved Buffalo Gourd, or
Cucurbita foetidissima. The root is mainly starch. The work that was done
indicated that the fuel was nearly smokeless when burned and used about 2/3
less amount of fuel (when compared to wood) to cook the same amount of food.
Yields per hectare were very high when grown under the proper conditions -
e.g. deep sandy soil and sufficient water. If I remember correctly the crop
did not respond to fertilizer but did respond to a certain amount of
irrigation. But too much water was not good as it caused the roots to rot.

I have a stack of journal articles and reports on the subject but little is
available electronically. The US DOE Western Regional Biomass Energy Program
(WRBEP) sponsored some agronomic studies on the Navajo Indian Reservation in
the mid-90s. I did not see the report online. WRBEP website is:
http://www.westbioenergy.org/ You can send them an email and see if there
are any electronic or hard copies of the report. The contact there is Jeff
Graef.

I think a few papers were also presented at the Second Biomass Conferences
of the Americas, held in Portalnd, OR in 1995.

Scott Haase

-----Original Message-----
From: A.D. Karve [mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:04 PM
To: shaase@mcneiltech.com
Cc: stoves@crest.org
Subject: Re: Who is going to the Biomass conference?

Dear Scott,
I am interested in root fuels. There are a number of plants that store food
in their roots and since they are non-edible, they are largely ignored. But
as a source of biomass fuel they could certainly play a big role. We have a
developed a technique of growing plants on above-ground sand-beds, which
makes harvesting of the roots very easy. Currently we are using this method
for root drugs, but we can also try it on root fuels. Since you are working
on gourd roots, and because a number of gourd species are grown by farmers
in India, I would like to know the species that you found useful as fuel. I
had only heard of buffalo gourd, but are there any others? What do the
buffalo gourd roots consist of? Is it starch?
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Haase <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: Who is going to the Biomass conference?

>
> thanks for the kind words Ron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Larson [mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 9:13 PM
> To: stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Fw: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
>
>
> Oops - sent this by mistake to Scott only.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
> To: <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 9:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
>
>
> > Stovers going to the biomass conference:
> >
> > I just wanted to add a bit more on Scott - in addition to what he
has
> > said below. First I consider him to be the most knowledgeable person in
> > Colorado on the resource base that we have for biomass. Seek Scott out
> for
> > how to make estimates of sustainable yields.
> >
> > Second is his knowledge about root fuels (gourds) - again something
> > where I percieve him to be especially knowledgeable.
> >
> > He has a deep affection I know for South Africa and is anxious to be
> > going back. We have talked about the possibility to have a stoves
meeting
> > at the "Rio + 10 conference" to be held in South Africa in 2002. I hope
> > those interested will seek Scott out at the Biomass conference to see if
> > that makes sense.
> >
> > Besides the above - Scott is not only smart - he is a nice guy who
is
> > fun to be around. Wish I was going also.
> >
> > Thanks also to Tom Miles for explaining more. Maybe we can have a
> > stoves session at the next meeting.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Scott Haase <shaase@mcneiltech.com>
> > To: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>; Apolinário J Malawene
> > <ajmalawene01@hotmail.com>; Bob and Karla Weldon
<bobkarlaweldon@cs.com>;
> Ed
> > Francis <cfranc@ilstu.edu>; <stoves@crest.org>; Tsamba--Alberto Julio
> > <ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz>; <clucas33@yahoo.com>; <clucas@zebra.uem.mz>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:10 AM
> > Subject: RE: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
> >
> >
> > > I will be attending. My contact info is as follows:
> > >
> > > Scott Haase
> > > McNeil Technologies
> > > 143 Union Blvd., Suite 900
> > > Lakewood, CO 80228
> > > www.mcneiltech.com
> > >
> > > Most of my time is spent working on biomass energy and biomass
resource
> > > utilization issues in the western U.S. I follow the discussion here on
> the
> > > stoves list, but do not post much. As I spent four years working in
> > Lesotho
> > > and South Africa, I am very interested in what goes on in the SADC
> > > countries, especially in the areas of renewable energy in general, and
> > > biomass in particular.
> > >
> > > I will post additional information on my current work areas at the
> bottom
> > of
> > > this post.
> > >
> > > Now a little on the conferences. I have been going to these
conferences
> > > since about 1994. I would say most of the papers are on the high end
of
> > > technology applications and research - mainly in the U.S and Europe.
But
> I
> > > think smaller-scale discussions are on the increase. I have always
found
> > the
> > > conferences to be very interesting and useful, both for technical
> > knowledge,
> > > social interaction, and developing new business and professional
> contacts.
> > > But that is from the perspective of working for a US based consulting
> > > company with most of my work being focused in this country, and mostly
> > based
> > > on U.S. government funding and programs. So the opinions on usefulness
> may
> > > differ by others on this list. Whether stovers could get together
> > informally
> > > depends on if anyone organizes something or wants to seek others out.
> This
> > > could be accomplished here or by word of mouth and diligent searching
at
> > the
> > > conference. If there is anyone from southern Africa attending, it
would
> be
> > > great to meet you.
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > Summary of Current Work Focus:
> > >
> > > I am interested in U.S. applications for some of the recent topics
here
> on
> > > briquettes, charcoal making and pressed log manufacturing. Actually I
am
> > > interested in meeting with people (or emailing) and discussing any
> > > technologies or concepts for using biomass here in the U.S. for small
> > scale
> > > energy projects. These can be either private sector (new business
> creation
> > > and end-use applications such as on-site co-gen) or community based
> > > applications such as converting schools to biomass heating
technologies.
> > The
> > > biomass will be mainly generated in the form of chipped small diameter
> > trees
> > > and brush produced through forest fire prevention thinning programs.
> > >
> > > The major issue that I - and many others - are looking at now is
related
> > to
> > > the threat of catastrophic wildfire facing many western forests,
> > especially
> > > within the Pine and Pine/Fir zones of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico,
> > Nevada,
> > > California, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho and eastern Oregon
and
> > > Washington. This region covers millions and millions of acres of
forest
> > and
> > > contains millions of tons of biomass that could be turned into energy
> and
> > > other higher value products.
> > >
> > > Over the past 100 years there has been a tremendous build-up of fuel
> loads
> > > in most forests of the western U.S., and in states like Florida. These
> > > conditions have been created through an interaction of heavy logging
and
> > > over grazing in the late 1800s, near-total fire suppression for the
last
> > > century, recent droughts and warming climate conditions, beetle and
> > disease
> > > outbreaks, and general land management policies of the country. If
> anyone
> > on
> > > this list will be in FL, I encourage you to look at the amount of fuel
> in
> > > the wooded areas surrounding Orlando.
> > >
> > > Most western forests now have an abundance of uniform, crowded stands
of
> > > small diameter trees - sometimes 400-500 and more per acre as opposed
to
> > > historic conditions that may have had 40-50 per acre and a much
greater
> > mix
> > > of small to very large trees in mixed canopy conditions. The stands
are
> > > even-aged, closed-canopy and in many cases contain trees that are dead
> or
> > > dying due to disease, drought, and insect outbreaks.
> > >
> > > The current response by land management agencies to the fire
> threat/small
> > > diameter issue is to treat the land, (either by mechanical thinning,
> > > prescribed burning or a combination thereof) in an effort to reduce
the
> > fuel
> > > load. The effort is aimed at both ecology and fire threat reduction.
It
> is
> > > hoped that these programs will "restore" the forest to conditions that
> are
> > > more in line with how they looked in the mid 1800s and will be more
> > > resilient to fire, and not as prone to totally destructive canopy
fires
> > that
> > > we have seen lately.
> > >
> > > Currently, more and more material is being mechanically cut and then
> > either
> > > removed or piled and burned. Removal is very expensive, and there are
> very
> > > few markets for the small diameter trees. The agencies prefer to burn
> the
> > > trees on site because it is cheaper. But there is such a build up of
> fuel
> > > that the real potential exists for the controlled burns to get away
> > (witness
> > > the Los Alamos fire last year that started as a controlled burn in a
> > > National Park and turned into a 40,000 acre burn that destroyed
hundreds
> > of
> > > homes and threatened a nuclear facility). So the benefits of new
markets
> > for
> > > this low-value, high-cost biomass could be considerable, but they are
> > > challenging.
> > >
> > > Energy is one potential market that could be developed, but the
> > applications
> > > need to be as high value as possible to offset the costs of fuel. I
> > believe
> > > there are opportunities in areas such as electricity production
ranging
> > from
> > > very small - 15 kW - up to 20 MW. Other areas include central
> > > heating/cooling systems for schools and commercial buildings,
pelleting,
> > > pressed logs, charcoal manufacture, briquettes, utility co-firing,
> > > distributed generation and manufacture of liquid biofuels.
> > >
> > > Any ideas are welcome. If you have a viable technology and are looking
> for
> > > potential new markets or pilot project locations, please contact me
and
> we
> > > can discuss additional ideas.
> > >
> > > Scott Haase
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul S. Anderson [mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:46 PM
> > > To: Apolinário J Malawene; Bob and Karla Weldon; Ed Francis;
> > > stoves@crest.org; Tsamba--Alberto Julio; clucas33@yahoo.com;
> > > clucas@zebra.uem.mz
> > > Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
> > >
> > >
> > > Stovers,
> > >
> > > I would think that those going to the Biomass conference would be
> posting
> > > to the list serve their names and points of contact.
> > >
> > > And those who have gone before, what will the conference be like?
How
> > > much on the high end of technology, and how much on the "appropriate"
> end?
> > >
> > > Do "stovers" get together?
> > >
> > > We know that Tom Reed and Richard Stanley are going. (Richard, we
want
> a
> > > copy of your paper / presentation posted to the listserve, please.)
> > > Sorry, I do not see how I could attend.
> > >
> > > Ron L. or Tom, could you repost the conference information to the
> > listserv,
> > > please.
> > >
> > > Are there other conferences equally or more important for stovers to
> > > attend? Or is this the big one?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Stoves List Archives and Website:
> > > http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> > > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> > >
> > > Stoves List Moderators:
> > > Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> > > Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> > > Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> > >
> > > List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> > > List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> > > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > > List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> > >
> > > Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > > -
> > > Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> > > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> > >
> > > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Stoves List Archives and Website:
> > > http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> > > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> > >
> > > Stoves List Moderators:
> > > Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> > > Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> > > Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> > >
> > > List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> > > List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> > > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > > List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> > >
> > > Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > > -
> > > Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> > > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> > >
> > > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From dkammen at socrates.Berkeley.EDU Wed Sep 12 14:00:52 2001
From: dkammen at socrates.Berkeley.EDU (Daniel M. Kammen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Stoves meetings and relationship to the Shell Foundation
In-Reply-To: <013901c13b96$baafc860$ed69e1cf@computer>
Message-ID: <3B9FA277.6A1D1FA9@socrates.berkeley.edu>

 

Hi All,
To add a bit more information to the discussion, I'd like to add a bit
about the October meeting.
At that meeting I will be making a presenation on what we have learned
from stove research and health/energy
effect, and what priorities that lays out for new efforts, initiatives,
and 'interventions'.
There are two key components of this: (1) the extensive information
base and experiences that the Stovers group
and others have developed; and (2) a study I recently completed on
exposure-response relationship between particulate
exposure from stoves and respiratory illness in Kenya.
That work has been listed before here, but is highlighted in the attached
press release.
Finally, I've been asked to write a paper, and probably run a side-event
at COP-7 on renewable energy/biomass energy resources,
and locally appropriate and sustainable development objectives. 
That paper is taking shape this month.
Thus, finally, a general solicitation:
If any of you have projects that have already achieved economic returns
or demonsrated other key lessons for sustainablity,
I would welcome descriptions for mention/profile at the Shell and COP
events.  Given the tight time-frame, I can
only reasonably use material that has some of the project parameters
described in quantiative or qualitative detail in terms of
outcomes.  Some work already discussed in this list will appear
in the Shell and COP-7 documents I am preapring.
If you send me information for this, please do so only as an attached
file with your/the project name clearly in the title.
Second, tables, charts, or images are welcome.  References are
vital, for those projects already described in print/web sites.
Key lessons and/or recommendations for the COP meeting are welcome,
including those that focus on ways that the CDM,
for instance, are also welcome.
I hope to circualte versions of at least the COP-7 document on this
list in draft form a soon as it is ready, which will
be in the next 2 weeks to meet various deadlines related to the COP.
Regards,
Dan
Ron Larson wrote:

Stovers:    
Several new thoughts on stoves (especially regional) meetings - as raised
recently by Paul Anderson. 1. 
The stoves "world" may change significantly here within the month as the
Shell Foundation brings together a number of stoves workers in London on
October 11-13.  I know who is invited (not necessarily coming), but
I don't feel it is my place to provide that list.   Necessarily,
the organizers have to limit attendance - as they seek guidance on how
their funds should be expended.  I believe about half of the invitees
are already "stoves" list members. 2. 
I presume I have been invited in part because I can represent the "stoves"
list members - and can communicate with you all after the meeting. 
I believe this first London meeting will be very helpful - and I am delighted
that Shell is expending some airfare - not salary) funds to bring a knowledgeable
stoves group together. 3.  
There are many people on this list who have not been part of the five weeks
of intense "Shell" dialog that ended a few weeks ago.  Therefore please
feel free now to throw in your stoves thoughts on to this "stoves" list
- so those of us who can go to that London meeting will have a better list
of priorities.  It will take you a good bit of effort to read that
Shell dialog - but for those who are interested you will have to struggle
through various choices at http://www.shellfoundation.org   
Look for "Sustainable Energy" and "Household Energy and Health" especially. 
Don't feel that you have to read that dialog to bring in your ideas now,
however. 4.  For
instance, our list sometimes talks about stoves emissions,  as Dean
Still did today in talking about the work of Dean Bryden's work with new
emissions monitoring equipment.  It seems clear that Shell will be
wanting an emphasis on health improvements - which will require more knowledge
on our part of how to make emissions measurements more cheaply and accurately. 
I hope Dean and Mark will tell us more of their efforts - which sounds
very helpful. 5. 
There is no way that Shell can fund lots of people to go to meetings -
but we might be able to talk about regional self-financed meetings that
are built around activities that Shell will eventually fund.  Any
thoughts along these lines?  Ron

--
____________________________________________________________
Daniel M. Kammen
Professor of Energy and Society
Professor of Public Policy in the Goldman School of Public Policy
Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL)
Energy and Resources Group (ERG)
310 Barrows Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-3050
Tel: 510-642-1139 (Office)
Tel: 510-642-1640 (ERG Front Desk)
Fax: 510-642-1085 (ERG Fax)
Tel: 510-643-2243 (RAEL)
Fax: 510-643-6344 (RAEL)
Email: dkammen@socrates.berkeley.edu
Web Pages:
Kammen http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~dkammen
RAEL    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael
ERG      http://socrates.berkeley.edu/erg
____________________________________________________________

Unknown Document

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: doc00200.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 219648 bytes
Desc: "http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/stoves/attachments/20010912/6eb1ee15/doc00200.obj
From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 13 12:44:57 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Stoves meetings and relationship to the Shell Foundation
In-Reply-To: <013901c13b96$baafc860$ed69e1cf@computer>
Message-ID: <002001c13c6e$afe3de20$b169e1cf@computer>

 

Stovers:  The following opens two big
opportunities for this list.  Rather tied in to messages recently from Paul
and Tami (which I will try to respond to later today.  In the
following, COP7 refers to the seventh "Conference of Parties" of the UNFCCC
(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).  This will be held
in Marrakech, Morocco between 29 October and 9
November, 2001.  One web site I found said 8000 participants from 185
countries.  COP6 was the one at the Hague about a year ago - not considered
a major success.  COP7 is the last before the Johannesburg.actual "Rio +
10" in September 2002.

In the following, I believe CDM
refers to "Clean Development Mechanism" - which was a part of the Kyoto
accords.

Dan:
Thanks for the following
message.  You are going to be busy!!

A.  On the Shell Dialog -  At the
Shellfoundation web site, I looked briefly at the minutes of the July London
meeting (mostly PV it seemed).  Do you (or anyone reading this) anticipate
the October 11 meeting to be organized similarly (several smaller subgroups)
with a similar range of topics?    As you copied my earlier
message about getting members of this list to offer their ideas, I can only
thank you for supporting the value of their doing that (if they have not
previously had the chance).


B.  I have mainly questions on your COP7
work

1.  I hope you can report back after Marrakech
(or sooner) as to how a stove "demonstration" or "competition" or "educational
display" could be established  in Johannesburg - and/or how to talk to the
right groups that will be organizing such events.  Will other groups be
doing something similar?  I think our audience should be the governmental
officials who will be there - but we probably will be seeing many more
non-governmental personnel.   There was a lot of such activity in
Rio. 
2.  There was a parallel non-UN set of
meetings and lectures in Rio.  Could you look into both official and
non-official activities - and whether it is feasible to run a stoves conference
as well?  I am presently assuming all stoves work would be
non-official.
3.  Is there a chance we can get strong
language about stoves and GCC into any UN official document?
4.  For whom will you be preparing your COP7
paper?  
5.  What is the format for
presenting your paper?  Will Marrakech delegates have a chance to
discuss stoves impacts on GCC at some point?
6.  What is your absolute deadline for
finishing this paper?  You are brave to offer it to this list - but I think
some good ideas could result.  Thank you for making this
offer.
7.  Any page or word count limit?
8.  Is your job mainly to summarize the stoves
area and lead UN readers to other literature?  Anyone else doing
this?
9.  Can you give us a few citations to CDM, so
that this list might better offer ideas?   (I found a small summary at
www.wri.org - which starts with 50 MW projects
as a "small" project.  For most of us that will be considered
huge.
10.  The main new stove ideas that I am
excited about coming from this list recently relate to the possible
cleanliness and charcoal-making potential for "holey" briquettes.  Not a
lot of technical literature yet - especially on the emissions properties. 
Unfortunately the subject of charcoal-making stoves is similarly not very well
documented - except through the Alex English web site.
11.  I think you have a good opportunity to
tie the main stoves issues together all at once - obviously you must consider
climate change emissions, but you have a chance to tie the stoves issues also
into health and fossil fuel supply issues as well as biomass misuse
(desertification, deforestation, etc).  Yours is a big task.  You have
given us a nice chance to help.  Thanks
12.  For those on the list who may be able to
influence their own government decisions as they also prepare for both COP7 and
for the actual Johannesburg 2002 meeting, can you (or anyone) give guidance on
any parts of official documents that relate (or should better relate) to
stoves?

Thanks again.

Ron
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
<A href="mailto:dkammen@socrates.Berkeley.EDU"
title=dkammen@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>Daniel M. Kammen
To: <A
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net" title=ronallarson@qwest.net>Ron Larson

Cc: <A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
title=stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:59
AM
Subject: Stoves meetings and relationship
to the Shell Foundation
Hi All,
To add a bit more information to the discussion, I'd like to add a bit
about the October meeting.
At that meeting I will be making a presenation on what we have learned from
stove research and health/energy effect, and what priorities that lays out
for new efforts, initiatives, and 'interventions'.
There are two key components of this: (1) the extensive information base
and experiences that the Stovers group and others have developed; and (2)
a study I recently completed on exposure-response relationship between
particulate exposure from stoves and respiratory illness in Kenya.
That work has been listed before here, but is highlighted in the attached
press release.
Finally, I've been asked to write a paper, and probably run a side-event at
COP-7 on renewable energy/biomass energy resources, and locally
appropriate and sustainable development objectives.  That paper is taking
shape this month.
Thus, finally, a general solicitation:
If any of you have projects that have already achieved economic returns or
demonsrated other key lessons for sustainablity, I would welcome
descriptions for mention/profile at the Shell and COP events.  Given the
tight time-frame, I can only reasonably use material that has some of the
project parameters described in quantiative or qualitative detail in terms of
outcomes.  Some work already discussed in this list will appear in
the Shell and COP-7 documents I am preapring. If you send me information
for this, please do so only as an attached file with your/the project name
clearly in the title. Second, tables, charts, or images are welcome. 
References are vital, for those projects already described in print/web sites.

Key lessons and/or recommendations for the COP meeting are welcome,
including those that focus on ways that the CDM, for instance, are also
welcome.
I hope to circualte versions of at least the COP-7 document on this list in
draft form a soon as it is ready, which will be in the next 2 weeks to
meet various deadlines related to the COP.
Regards,
Dan
Ron Larson wrote:



Stovers: <FONT
face=Arial>    Several new thoughts on stoves
(especially regional) meetings - as raised recently by Paul
Anderson. 1.  The
stoves "world" may change significantly here within the month as the Shell
Foundation brings

<FONT face=Arial
size=2><SNIP>

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Thu Sep 13 13:38:37 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Who is going to the Biomass conference?
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010907143454.01a44310@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <3BA0EE43.B11D0E96@legacyfound.org>

Stovers esp., Larry Winarski and Dean Stills,
I had the good fortune of meeting Larry Winarski yesterday. We tested
two sizes of our single hole briquettes in respectively,  two separate
sizes of rocket stoves.
The larger 4" dia. briquette was stuffed into the vertical 4" center
tube /combustion chamber of the Rocket Stove. The fit was relatively tight
such that there was little  air flow around the briquette but rather
only through the 1.25" dia.. center hole of the briquette. The tests
were not quantified but what we learned was that the briquette needs either
an annular space about it or multiple holes to burn optimally. (making
multiple holes from our experience, is a good deal more challenging than
a single hole in the current batch fed or continuous feed press designs
using the wet process with its barely-liquid biomass feedstock but that
is another subject)
The smaller  2.5" dia. briquette (with its single 3/4" in. dia..
hole) was fed horizontally into a smaller rocket stove with perhaps a 3"
dia. feed tube. The burn was from the end of the briquette which protruded
well into the vertical tube / combustion chamber . This burned far better
especially when Larry added ashes to insulate the combustion tube.
The rocket stove is ingenious and to my mind, would be adaptable to
most any location. I would highly recommend it for optimizing the burn
of briquettes. In this application We saw the more effective use of the
briquettes when fed into burn chamber via the air feed tube rather than
into the combustion chamber directly. Our continuous feed press, will produce
briquettes of much greater length (up to 10" length for the smaller rocket
stove and will be ideal for use in it. The continuous feed press was developed
initially in Malawi in 1996-7 .
The continuous feed press is currently being modified here (in Ashland
Oregon) to optimize it for production in rural Mexico and northern Guatemala
where we will soon be  setting up a training center. As we finalize
tests in the field with micro-entrepreneur-producers, I will  post
up the design with permission of Alex English, who  has kindly hosted
our basic photos of the  batch-fed press in operation. The continuous
feed press should (if our early Malawi experience holds)  double or
triple the output of the batch feed design.
Larry also gave me a crash course in combustion and explained a lot
about the need for preheated air / and the effect of not having same on
condensing (rather than igniting the gases coming off the fuel source).
This preheating of the air supply through use of their air fuel feed tube
and their use of insulation  about the  combustion chamber makes
this stove a real winner.
Thanks much Larry, for your time and your good work. I will hopefully
be able to return the favor by getting you or the other concerned Aprovecho
folks down to Mexico to co-host a training event with us this fall.
Richard



From dkammen at socrates.Berkeley.EDU Thu Sep 13 13:58:58 2001
From: dkammen at socrates.Berkeley.EDU (Daniel M. Kammen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Stoves meetings and relationship to the Shell Foundation
In-Reply-To: <013901c13b96$baafc860$ed69e1cf@computer>
Message-ID: <3BA0F1CA.D077A875@socrates.berkeley.edu>

 

Hi Ron and Stovers,
Too long a list of questions, I fear, in the time, but here goes:
- The COP7 report will be distributed to all delegates (around 3000),
and may be used for a 'side event', probably on one
of the first days of the meeting.
- The focus of our report and set of recommendations will be how to
best evaluate, support, and sustain small (yes, < 50 MW)
projects that meet both the goals of energy generation and truly
local control, job and income generation, and autonomy.
- The project was requested by the Government of Morcco.
- No precise word/lengh limit.
- This must all be done by the end of the month (September). 
To be included, I must have all material by September 20, and
even  that is pushing it (an absurd deadline, I know, but dictated
by the timing of the Moroccan request, and the time needed
to complete editing and translations into all official meeting languages,
plus to plan a side-event).
- Stoves can very much be part of official as well as unofficial biomass/renewable
energy development process.
- A key contribution to, and from, this paper could hopefully be some
clear lessons from successful (and not so
successful cases).  Data and conclusions for that are very much
welcome!
-dan
Ron Larson wrote:
Stovers: 
The following opens two big opportunities for this list.  Rather tied
in to messages recently from Paul and Tami (which I will try to respond
to later today.  In the following, COP7 refers to the seventh "Conference
of Parties" of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change).  This will be held in Marrakech, Morocco between 29 October
and 9 November, 2001.  One web site I found said 8000 participants
from 185 countries.  COP6 was the one at the Hague about a year ago
- not considered a major success.  COP7 is the last before the Johannesburg.actual
"Rio + 10" in September 2002.    
In the following, I believe CDM refers to "Clean Development Mechanism"
- which was a part of the Kyoto accords. Dan:   
Thanks for the following message.  You are going to be busy!! A. 
On the Shell Dialog -  At the Shellfoundation web site, I looked briefly
at the minutes of the July London meeting (mostly PV it seemed). 
Do you (or anyone reading this) anticipate the October 11 meeting to be
organized similarly (several smaller subgroups) with a similar range of
topics?    As you copied my earlier message about getting
members of this list to offer their ideas, I can only thank you for supporting
the value of their doing that (if they have not previously had the chance).  B. 
I have mainly questions on your COP7 work 1. 
I hope you can report back after Marrakech (or sooner) as to how a stove
"demonstration" or "competition" or "educational display" could be established 
in Johannesburg - and/or how to talk to the right groups that will be organizing
such events.  Will other groups be doing something similar? 
I think our audience should be the governmental officials who will be there
- but we probably will be seeing many more non-governmental personnel.  
There was a lot of such activity in Rio.2. 
There was a parallel non-UN set of meetings and lectures in Rio. 
Could you look into both official and non-official activities - and whether
it is feasible to run a stoves conference as well?  I am presently
assuming all stoves work would be non-official.3. 
Is there a chance we can get strong language about stoves and GCC into
any UN official document?4. 
For whom will you be preparing your COP7 paper?5. 
What is the format for presenting your paper?  Will Marrakech delegates
have a chance to discuss stoves impacts on GCC at some point?6. 
What is your absolute deadline for finishing this paper?  You are
brave to offer it to this list - but I think some good ideas could result. 
Thank you for making this offer.7. 
Any page or word count limit?8. 
Is your job mainly to summarize the stoves area and lead UN readers to
other literature?  Anyone else doing this?9. 
Can you give us a few citations to CDM, so that this list might better
offer ideas?   (I found a small summary at www.wri.org
- which starts with 50 MW projects as a "small" project.  For most
of us that will be considered huge.10. 
The main new stove ideas that I am excited about coming from this list
recently relate to the possible cleanliness and charcoal-making potential
for "holey" briquettes.  Not a lot of technical literature yet - especially
on the emissions properties.  Unfortunately the subject of charcoal-making
stoves is similarly not very well documented - except through the Alex
English web site.11. 
I think you have a good opportunity to tie the main stoves issues together
all at once - obviously you must consider climate change emissions, but
you have a chance to tie the stoves issues also into health and fossil
fuel supply issues as well as biomass misuse (desertification, deforestation,
etc).  Yours is a big task.  You have given us a nice chance
to help.  Thanks12. 
For those on the list who may be able to influence their own government
decisions as they also prepare for both COP7 and for the actual Johannesburg
2002 meeting, can you (or anyone) give guidance on any parts of official
documents that relate (or should better relate) to stoves? Thanks
again. Ron
<blockquote
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----

<div
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Daniel
M. Kammen

To: Ron
Larson

Cc: stoves@crest.org

Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001
11:59 AM

Subject: Stoves meetings and relationship
to the Shell Foundation
Hi All,
To add a bit more information to the discussion, I'd like to add a bit
about the October meeting.
At that meeting I will be making a presenation on what we have learned
from stove research and health/energy
effect, and what priorities that lays out for new efforts, initiatives,
and 'interventions'.
There are two key components of this: (1) the extensive information
base and experiences that the Stovers group
and others have developed; and (2) a study I recently completed on
exposure-response relationship between particulate
exposure from stoves and respiratory illness in Kenya.
That work has been listed before here, but is highlighted in the attached
press release.
Finally, I've been asked to write a paper, and probably run a side-event
at COP-7 on renewable energy/biomass energy resources,
and locally appropriate and sustainable development objectives. 
That paper is taking shape this month.
Thus, finally, a general solicitation:
If any of you have projects that have already achieved economic returns
or demonsrated other key lessons for sustainablity,
I would welcome descriptions for mention/profile at the Shell and COP
events.  Given the tight time-frame, I can
only reasonably use material that has some of the project parameters
described in quantiative or qualitative detail in terms of
outcomes.  Some work already discussed in this list will appear
in the Shell and COP-7 documents I am preapring.
If you send me information for this, please do so only as an attached
file with your/the project name clearly in the title.
Second, tables, charts, or images are welcome.  References are
vital, for those projects already described in print/web sites.
Key lessons and/or recommendations for the COP meeting are welcome,
including those that focus on ways that the CDM,
for instance, are also welcome.
I hope to circualte versions of at least the COP-7 document on this
list in draft form a soon as it is ready, which will
be in the next 2 weeks to meet various deadlines related to the COP.
Regards,
Dan
Ron Larson wrote:

Stovers:    
Several new thoughts on stoves (especially regional) meetings - as raised
recently by Paul Anderson. 1. 
The stoves "world" may change significantly here within the month as the
Shell Foundation brings <SNIP>

 

--
____________________________________________________________
Daniel M. Kammen
Professor of Energy and Society
Professor of Public Policy in the Goldman School of Public Policy
Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL)
Energy and Resources Group (ERG)
310 Barrows Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-3050
Tel: 510-642-1139 (Office)
Tel: 510-642-1640 (ERG Front Desk)
Fax: 510-642-1085 (ERG Fax)
Tel: 510-643-2243 (RAEL)
Fax: 510-643-6344 (RAEL)
Email: dkammen@socrates.berkeley.edu
Web Pages:
Kammen http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~dkammen
RAEL    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael
ERG      http://socrates.berkeley.edu/erg
____________________________________________________________

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Sep 13 19:06:35 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Stoves at JNB-02
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010913173720.01a55100@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

Rio + 10 is a known but strange name. And Johannesburg is a long name to
type. I hope that JNB (the airport designation) and the year 02 will be
clearly understood. Or maybe it could be Jo -2 or Jo - 02? Anyway,

Major focus on Stoves is coming into Johannesburg in September 2002. We
who do work in SADC (southern Africa) areas (and eastern Africa and all of
Africa) have an especially great opportunity to make an impact.

Perhaps this will stimulate dialogue among those of us in the SADC area
plus close areas to get our act together.

Is there anyone on the Stoves list who lives in South Africa, especially in
the Jo-burg area? We do have Stoves members in Zimbabwe, southern
Mozambique, and Swaziland.

Does anyone KNOW any "stoves-type" person in the JNB area?

As for me, I will be flying into and out of JNB potentially 8 times (4
trips) before the JNB-02 main conference. And I will be contacting
universities in the JNB-Pretoria area about other issues (maps). I hope I
could help in some way.

I really like the thinking / planning of Ron and Dan (among others). A
major Stoves event could be happening 50 weeks (or 354 days) from now in JNB.

NOTE: With the change of the Biomass conference in Orlando to 17-21
December, we might gain a major chance to get even better organized. I am
already thinking about possibly being there (instead of Africa this
December??).

Because these two conferences form such a bureaucratic / administrative
topic (that MUST be discussed, but should not detract from our discussions
about other crucial Stoves topics), I request that all posting about the
conferences (Biomass 01 and JNB 02) are clearly identified in the subject
line of the listserve e-mail messages, and do NOT include other content
that if readers skip these conference arrangement messages.

Opportunity knocks occasionally.
Chance favors the prepared mind.

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From capjan at vol.cz Fri Sep 14 02:25:35 2001
From: capjan at vol.cz (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jan_C=E1p?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Modern commercial wood-gas cookstove?
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913173720.01a55100@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <000201c13ce5$7ebdcd70$2a84fac3@krtek>

Hi,

if anyone know about subj. (possibly made in Italy, with ceramicsglass
htoplate .. seen by my fren on web) tell mee contact to producer. Thanks.

J.Cap

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Fri Sep 14 13:37:16 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:03 2004
Subject: Stoves at JNB-02
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913173720.01a55100@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <011501c13d41$ef956b00$6ed51ac4@jmdavies>

Hi Paul and Ron.

I live at Secunda, 130 KM S.E. of JNB.

I am not an active stover, but a "1st grade student", with a long learning
path ahead.

My main interest is the gas producer combustion furnace as applied to a
miniature steam locomotive. Coal burning is the current fuel under
investigation and testing in miniature locomotives, mimicking the full scale
application as pioneered by eng. L D Porta of Argentina, but aim to
investigate bio-mass fuel in the future.

This appears far removed from "stoves" , but the link to be investigated is
the clean burning of low grade bituminous coal. The locomotive furnace is of
similar size to a small stove, although it uses forced draft.

The area to the south east of JNB is rich in coal, while freely available
and cheap bio-mass fuel does not exist in any quantity in this High -Plateau
region.

The result of the above is that millions of the "poorest people" living in
"informal settlements" use this low grade coal for heating and cooking.
There is no affordable alternative. The areas around these settlements on
winters nights becomes a pea-soup smog.

This coal is usually burned in the most primitive and pollution forming
manner. A 20 lit. tin punched with holes. Commonly known as a BOLO.

I feel that the locomotive combustion system could be adapted, to the BOLO.
but still have to do experimenting in this field. Success would allow
introducing an improvement to a familiar method and system, and might meet
the least resistance to change.

I personally seldom go to JNB. But would be willing to give a little of my
time to local self-help projects to improve this situation. That is if these
people want, and will accept help.

Regards,
John Davies.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>

> Is there anyone on the Stoves list who lives in South Africa, especially
in
> the Jo-burg area? We do have Stoves members in Zimbabwe, southern
> Mozambique, and Swaziland.
>
> Does anyone KNOW any "stoves-type" person in the JNB area?

> As for me, I will be flying into and out of JNB potentially 8 times (4
> trips) before the JNB-02 main conference. And I will be contacting
> universities in the JNB-Pretoria area about other issues (maps). I hope I
> could help in some way.

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sat Sep 15 00:31:47 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Stoves at JNB-02
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913173720.01a55100@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <014f01c13d9c$55b4f680$f16ae1cf@computer>

Hi John:

See more notes below.

----- Original Message -----
From: John Davies <jmdavies@xsinet.co.za>
To: stove list <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Stoves at JNB-02

> Hi Paul and Ron.
>
> I live at Secunda, 130 KM S.E. of JNB.
>
> I am not an active stover, but a "1st grade student", with a long learning
> path ahead.
>
> My main interest is the gas producer combustion furnace as applied to a
> miniature steam locomotive. Coal burning is the current fuel under
> investigation and testing in miniature locomotives, mimicking the full
scale
> application as pioneered by eng. L D Porta of Argentina, but aim to
> investigate bio-mass fuel in the future.
>
> This appears far removed from "stoves" , but the link to be investigated
is
> the clean burning of low grade bituminous coal. The locomotive furnace is
of
> similar size to a small stove, although it uses forced draft.
>
(rwl): It may not be that far removed. We have had lots of discussion
of these topics:
coal burning, forced draft (vs natural convection), and use of "waste" heat
from charcoal-making.

When talking about forced draft - are you referring to all locomotives
or just the large ones? How large is yours?

> The area to the south east of JNB is rich in coal, while freely available
> and cheap bio-mass fuel does not exist in any quantity in this
High -Plateau
> region.
>
> The result of the above is that millions of the "poorest people" living in
> "informal settlements" use this low grade coal for heating and cooking.
> There is no affordable alternative. The areas around these settlements on
> winters nights becomes a pea-soup smog.
>
> This coal is usually burned in the most primitive and pollution forming
> manner. A 20 lit. tin punched with holes. Commonly known as a BOLO.
>
> I feel that the locomotive combustion system could be adapted, to the
BOLO.
> but still have to do experimenting in this field. Success would allow
> introducing an improvement to a familiar method and system, and might meet
> the least resistance to change.
>
Is the coal in lump form? Did you see the description (by Tami of
Chinese stove use of coal in the form of "holey" briquettes? Might be
cleaner burning. Is the locomotive system apt to better because of the
forced air? Can you give us more of an idea how much cleaner and more on
what you woiuld do differently. Also maybe more on the BOLO - how many
holes, their size and where located? Is there an internal grate?

To get higher cooking efficiency, we have been pushing better insulation
that obtainable from a 20 liter can. Is there a need for warmth from the
stoves in the highlands?

> I personally seldom go to JNB. But would be willing to give a little of my
> time to local self-help projects to improve this situation. That is if
these
> people want, and will accept help.
>
Thanks for the response about your location and JNB-2. I am guessing you
are too far way to easily help with setting up something big. If you find
anyone else actually in JNB, please let us know. If we get there, we will
look forward to seeing you then.

> Regards,
> John Davies.

(RWL): I am guessing that few of us on the list have a sense of what
the locomotive firebox looks like (dimensions, measns of air control, etc).
Always a chimney? What height? What sort of coal (or wood) consumption is
typical (kg/hour)? Are the exit gases passing through a heat exchanger to
create steam?

It sounds like you are trying hard to make a much needed improvement.
Best of luck and let us know how we can help.- which is apt to be more on
wood than coal.

Ron

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>
>
> > Is there anyone on the Stoves list who lives in South Africa, especially
> in
> > the Jo-burg area? We do have Stoves members in Zimbabwe, southern
> > Mozambique, and Swaziland.
> >
> > Does anyone KNOW any "stoves-type" person in the JNB area?
>
> > As for me, I will be flying into and out of JNB potentially 8 times (4
> > trips) before the JNB-02 main conference. And I will be contacting
> > universities in the JNB-Pretoria area about other issues (maps). I hope
I
> > could help in some way.
>
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Sep 15 04:49:50 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the highveldt
Message-ID: <003f01c13d5e$43574ee0$50e80fc4@home>

Ron asked John Davies:

>To get higher cooking efficiency, we have been pushing better insulation
>that obtainable from a 20 liter can. Is there a need for warmth from the
>stoves in the highlands?

Well, it is snowing up there tight now! The Van Reeneans Pass has been
closed for 3 days. I was in Nelspruit yesterday and it was snowing at Long
Tom Pass. Dang right we need warmth! I ma in Swaziland and I hear of
snowfalls within 150 km of here. Bitterly cold at the moment.

The Bolo and the Mbaula are similar in name but not in function. The more
recent Mbaula (or mbawula) has a shell made from a reject floor cleaner's
bucket placed around the coal containing bucket which is a modified 25 litre
reject paint can. It provides a small measure of pre-heated secondary air.
A short chimney is used to get the volatiles burned off. That is made from
a 10 litre reject paint can. The whole unit sells for about $17 and
includes a grate. It makes less smoke that the bolo because of the partial
secondary combustion.

Regards
Crispin

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From tombreed at home.com Sat Sep 15 09:47:40 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Stoves meetings and relationship to the Shell Foundation
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913171639.01a54e30@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <003e01c13dea$57aece40$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

 

Dear Paul (and Bob?):

Great to have you "all fired up" for improved stoves. 
Too bad you don't live in Denver or me in Normal.  What a team we'd
make.

Yes I understand probably more principles of woodgas stove
than anyone on this planet.  But I do learn new things every day.  I'd
love to give a 1/2 hour lecture to you and Bob.  I'd like to say "it's not
rocket science", but hey, we started and completed rocket science in 50 years
and we are still only 30% into woodgas stove science.  So it should keep me
busy the rest of my life. 

Wish I could send you the natural convection stove I wrote
about with Ron - I'll look in garage, but not sure its there.  In any case,
that was a "work in progress".  So, best you build that, then start
improving from there. 

Your main effort initially needs to be to collect a few 1 lb,
2 lb and 3 lb coffee cans (the 2 lb style is harder to find).  You could
even buy your next year's supply of coffee, empty the cans and freeze the
coffee, but better to find them around.  Next you need to buy a supply of
"riser sleeves" that fit the cans.  (4 inch, 5 inch and 6 inch OD). 
Riser sleeves are well known in the metal casting business and unknown to the
rest of the world.  The high temperature variety easily withstands
temperatures of 1500 C, (molten steel).  They are easy to cut and form and
only cost a few $ each.  I recommend looking in your yellow pages for a big
foundry, making friends with them and buying a few at a time. 

 
I said the natural convection (NC) stove described in the
paper with Ron Larson was a "work in progress".  (On my website at <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com).  I spent 12 years
trying to build a natural convection stove to my satisfaction.  That was my
best effort at that time.  Then I tried forced convection with a small
blower and immediately went to better performance and more flexibility in
design.  However, I believe that there are improvements to be made in the
NC stove as follows.  

The bottom section of the stove makes combusible gas very
well.  The problem is to mix that gas with combustion air using only
NC.  A very small amount of pressure from a fan or blower solves that
simply.  However, the upper section of the NC stove described also solves
it by providing chimney draft and there's the rub.  Each foot of chimney
filled with hot gas provides 0.01 inch of water pressure; my blower provides 0.3
inch water pressure and is probably more than I need.

The problem in the NC stove is that a chimney the same size as
the bottom section does not have enough hot gas to fill it.  You could make
a smaller diameter chimney  - say 2" on top of the 4" gasifier.  But a
2" flame is rather small for cooking.  That is the reason for the "Gas
Wick" shown in the paper.  (A private joke, not a very good name).  It
gives a ring of flame, similar to that from a gas range and that's what people
are used to.  Maybe you can think of a better way of solving this
problem. 

Or maybe the chimney-stove arrangement is good enough in
places where cooking is more primative.

Ron Larson thinks producing charcoal is a major advantage of
the NC (and FC) stoves.  In some countries the charcoal would be a
desirable product, others it is a nuisance.  I am working on means of
burning all the fuel and not leaving charcoal now.  Also I am working on
improving the blower/fan system. 

But I hope you will want to repeat our NC stove and then make
a better one.  You may put our FC stoves out of business - I hope. 

 
Yours for a better
world               
TOM REED
Dr. Thomas Reed 
The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401303
278 0558; tombreed@home.com; <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Paul S.
Anderson
To: <A title=tombreed@home.com
href="mailto:tombreed@home.com">Thomas Reed ; <A
title=ronallarson@qwest.net href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net">Ron Larson

Cc: <A title=rwalt@gocpc.com
href="mailto:rwalt@gocpc.com">Robb Walt ; <A title=bobkarlaweldon@cs.com
href="mailto:bobkarlaweldon@cs.com">Bob and Karla Weldon ; <A
title=cfranc@ilstu.edu href="mailto:cfranc@ilstu.edu">Ed Francis
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:44
AM
Subject: Re: Re: Stoves meetings and
relationship to the Shell Foundation
Tom,Your message is understood (and I agree that
meetings spread knowledge, and do not create knowledge or
technology.)And yes, let's build the better stove.But we (me)
here in Normal Illinois are so ignorant, and we are climbing the learning
curve.What I have proposed to your cousin Bob Weldon and retired
technology professor Ed Francis is that we get some activity going here. 
Here is ONE possible suggestion:That we build here one of your
gasification stoves WITHOUT the blower.Are the specifications as
provided in the 1996 presentation by you and Ron sufficient in detail, or are
there more specific instructions and measurements?  (please send us the
best information there is.  Or do you have an operational unit or early
prototype that you could UPS to us?)And would you consider a visit to
Illinois.  That way you could help move us along, including using some of
the changes that you would do if you would "stay home and build
better stoves."(So sorry that I cannot get to Colorado.  I am not
yet retired and I still need to show up for my day-job teaching
geography.)Please do not feel pressured, but the only reason I
ever got started in this stoves and briquettes stuff is because of you and
your nifty gasification stove on Bob's kitchen table.  Therefore, I am
not shy in asking for your assistance.(Except for 3 to 21 October when
I am in Africa, ANYTIME would be great for you to visit us
again.)Hoping you will say yes (and also send more construction
details).Also, You wrote:>Someone must actually
understand the principles of combustion and make better stoves.  No
>money available for this.   So sad.I have assumed
that YOU (if anyone) DO "actually understand the principles of
combustion."  The PRINCIPLES.  Sure there are lots of "tweekings"
and applications to do to "make better stoves", but the PRINCIPLES  ARE
(or are NOT??) sufficiently understood ??When it comes to the
"make better stoves" part, the SIMPLE stove that is needed by the billions of
people should not require BIG money to get a model (or models) built. 
Otherwise, you would not have written that you would "stay home and build
better stoves."  And ___I___ believe that the better stove CAN be
built, and will be built by individuals like you and Ron and me and Ed and
(even) Bob.  (Sorry Bob, I could not avoid the little
dig.) What changes would you make to your IDD  stove
(version without motorized blower)?  Ed and I (with help from others,
possibly my contacts in Mozambique and Swaziland) could try to build it. 
But I hardly know where to start without substantial guidance from you. 
I do not see it much as a money/funding problem, at least not for the simple
materials.  Looking forward to your reply.PaulAt
07:09 AM 9/14/01 -0600, Thomas Reed wrote:
Dear Paul and
Ron: No amount of meetings to rehash what
is already know will advance the technology of stoves one iota.  We
could spend all our time at meetings.  The meetings are useful to
spread the technology already know. Someone
must actually understand the principles of combustion and make better
stoves.  No money available for this.   So
sad. Keep me posted on the meetings and
I'll come when invited....   Otherwise I'll stay home and build
better stoves.  TOM REED

Dr. Thomas Reed  The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith
Rd., Golden, CO 80401303 278 0558; <A
href="mailto:tombreed@home.com">tombreed@home.com; <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com/" eudora="autourl">www.woodgas.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul S. Anderson
To: Neal Van Milligen ; <A
href="mailto:rstanley@legacyfound.org">Richard Stanley ; <A
href="mailto:ajmalawene01@hotmail.com">Apolinário J Malawene ; <A
href="mailto:bobkarlaweldon@cs.com">Bob and Karla Weldon ; <A
href="mailto:cfranc@ilstu.edu">Ed Francis ; <A
href="mailto:ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz">Tsamba--Alberto Julio ; <A
href="mailto:crispin@newdawn.sz">Crispin ; <A
href="mailto:clucas33@yahoo.com">clucas33@yahoo.com ; <A
href="mailto:clucas@zebra.uem.mz">clucas@zebra.uem.mz ; <A
href="mailto:TOMBREED@HOME.COM">TOMBREED@HOME.COM
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 4:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Stoves meetings and relationship to the Shell
Foundation
Important issues:
1.  The message below (to Stoves list, so some of you have
already seen it) makes several points, including:
1. A.  The main new stove ideas that I
[Ron] am excited about coming from this list recently relate to the
possible cleanliness and charcoal-making potential for "holey"
briquettes.  Not a lot of technical literature yet - especially on
the emissions properties. 

Paul
adds: And that is where WE have been focusing our attention.  WE need
to move forward with this opportunity.
1.B.  Unfortunately the subject of charcoal-making stoves is
similarly not very well documented - except through the Alex English web
site.
Paul
adds:  We have not looked at this.  Can we?   Should
we?   Carlos, what do you think?  Crispin, have you looked
at this?    If yes, we will want to bring our discussion
quickly back onto the entire Stoves list.
2.  All the focus is coming into Johannesburg in September
2002.  We who do work in SADC areas have an especially great
opportunity to make an impact.  Crispin, Carlos, how involved in this
would YOU or your close associates want to be with this?   
As for me, I will be flying into and out of JNB potentially 8 times (4
trips) before the JNB main conference.  I hope I could help in some
way.  I will post parts of this message to the Stoves full list, but
I wanted to know from you about your levels of interest and possible
involvement.
Neal, Richard, Tom, Ed and Bob, how involved do you want to
get?
Apolinario:  You and I will start making our plans for this Sept
2002 event.
Sincerely,
Paul

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:10:58 -0600
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
Subject: Re: Stoves meetings and relationship to the Shell
Foundation
To: dkammen@socrates.Berkeley.EDU, stoves@crest.org
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
Delivered-to: mailing list stoves@crest.org
Mailing-List: contact stoves-help@crest.org; run by ezmlm
List-Post: <<A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
eudora="autourl">mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <<A href="mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org"
eudora="autourl">mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <<A href="mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org"
eudora="autourl">mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Help: <<A href="mailto:stoves-help@crest.org"
eudora="autourl">mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
X-No-Archive: yes
Stovers:  The following opens two big opportunities for this
list.  Rather tied in to messages recently from Paul and Tami
(which I will try to respond to later today.  In the following,
COP7 refers to the seventh "Conference of Parties" of the UNFCCC (United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).  This will be held
in Marrakech, Morocco between 29 October and 9 November, 2001.  One
web site I found said 8000 participants from 185 countries.  COP6
was the one at the Hague about a year ago - not considered a major
success.  COP7 is the last before the Johannesburg.actual "Rio +
10" in September 2002.

In the following, I believe CDM refers to "Clean
Development Mechanism" - which was a part of the Kyoto accords.

Dan:
Thanks for the following message.  You are
going to be busy!!

A.  On the Shell Dialog -  At the Shellfoundation web
site, I looked briefly at the minutes of the July London meeting (mostly
PV it seemed).  Do you (or anyone reading this) anticipate the
October 11 meeting to be organized similarly (several smaller subgroups)
with a similar range of topics?    As you copied my
earlier message about getting members of this list to offer their ideas,
I can only thank you for supporting the value of their doing that (if
they have not previously had the chance).


B.  I have mainly questions on your COP7 work

1.  I hope you can report back after Marrakech (or sooner) as
to how a stove "demonstration" or "competition" or "educational display"
could be established  in Johannesburg - and/or how to talk to the
right groups that will be organizing such events.  Will other
groups be doing something similar?  I think our audience should be
the governmental officials who will be there - but we probably will be
seeing many more non-governmental personnel.   There was a lot
of such activity in Rio. 
2.  There was a parallel non-UN set of meetings and lectures in
Rio.  Could you look into both official and non-official activities
- and whether it is feasible to run a stoves conference as well?  I
am presently assuming all stoves work would be non-official.<FONT
face=arial size=2>
3.  Is there a chance we can get strong language about stoves
and GCC into any UN official document?
4.  For whom will you be preparing your COP7 paper?  

5.  What is the format for presenting your paper?  Will
Marrakech delegates have a chance to discuss stoves impacts on GCC at
some point?
6.  What is your absolute deadline for finishing this
paper?  You are brave to offer it to this list - but I think some
good ideas could result.  Thank you for making this
offer.
7.  Any page or word count limit?<FONT face=arial
size=2>
8.  Is your job mainly to summarize the stoves area and lead UN
readers to other literature?  Anyone else doing this?<FONT
face=arial size=2>
9.  Can you give us a few citations to CDM, so that this list
might better offer ideas?   (I found a small summary at <A
href="http://www.wri.org">www.wri.org - which starts with 50 MW
projects as a "small" project.  For most of us that will be
considered huge.
10.  The main new stove ideas that I am excited about coming
from this list recently relate to the possible cleanliness and
charcoal-making potential for "holey" briquettes.  Not a lot of
technical literature yet - especially on the emissions properties. 
Unfortunately the subject of charcoal-making stoves is similarly not
very well documented - except through the Alex English web
site.
11.  I think you have a good opportunity to tie the main stoves
issues together all at once - obviously you must consider climate change
emissions, but you have a chance to tie the stoves issues also into
health and fossil fuel supply issues as well as biomass misuse
(desertification, deforestation, etc).  Yours is a big task. 
You have given us a nice chance to help.  Thanks<FONT
face=arial size=2>
12.  For those on the list who may be able to influence their
own government decisions as they also prepare for both COP7 and for the
actual Johannesburg 2002 meeting, can you (or anyone) give guidance on
any parts of official documents that relate (or should better relate) to
stoves?

Thanks again.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel M.
Kammen
To: Ron Larson
Cc: stoves@crest.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:59 AM
Subject: Stoves meetings and relationship to the Shell
Foundation
Hi All,
To add a bit more information to the discussion, I'd like to add a
bit about the October meeting.
At that meeting I will be making a presenation on what we have
learned from stove research and health/energy
effect, and what priorities that lays out for new efforts,
initiatives, and 'interventions'.
There are two key components of this: (1) the extensive
information base and experiences that the Stovers group
and others have developed; and (2) a study I recently completed on
exposure-response relationship between particulate
exposure from stoves and respiratory illness in Kenya.
That work has been listed before here, but is highlighted in the
attached press release.
Finally, I've been asked to write a paper, and probably run a
side-event at COP-7 on renewable energy/biomass energy resources,
and locally appropriate and sustainable development
objectives.  That paper is taking shape this month.
Thus, finally, a general solicitation:
If any of you have projects that have already achieved economic
returns or demonsrated other key lessons for sustainablity,
I would welcome descriptions for mention/profile at the Shell and
COP events.  Given the tight time-frame, I can
only reasonably use material that has some of the project
parameters described in quantiative or qualitative detail in terms of
outcomes.  Some work already discussed in this list will
appear in the Shell and COP-7 documents I am preapring.
If you send me information for this, please do so only as an
attached file with your/the project name clearly in the title.
Second, tables, charts, or images are welcome.  References
are vital, for those projects already described in print/web sites.

Key lessons and/or recommendations for the COP meeting are
welcome, including those that focus on ways that the CDM,
for instance, are also welcome.
I hope to circualte versions of at least the COP-7 document on
this list in draft form a soon as it is ready, which will
be in the next 2 weeks to meet various deadlines related to the
COP.
Regards,
Dan
Ron Larson wrote:

Stovers:    
Several new thoughts on stoves (especially regional) meetings - as
raised recently by Paul Anderson. <FONT face=arial
size=2>1.  The stoves "world" may change significantly here
within the month as the Shell Foundation brings

<SNIP>
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice: 
309-438-7360;  FAX:  309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: <A
href="http://www.ilstu.edu/~psanders"
eudora="autourl">www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice:  309-438-7360; 
FAX:  309-438-5310E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: <A
href="http://www.ilstu.edu/~psanders"
EUDORA="AUTOURL">www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Sep 15 14:11:05 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: JHB area member?
Message-ID: <00bd01c13dac$ad53bce0$50e80fc4@home>

Paul asked

"Is there anyone on the Stoves list who lives in South Africa, especially in
the Jo-burg area? We do have Stoves members in Zimbabwe, southern
Mozambique, and Swaziland.

Does anyone KNOW any "stoves-type" person in the JNB area?"

Dr Doug Banks is there. He put me onto this list last week. Doug - are you
subscribed here?

- Crispin

 

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Sep 15 14:11:49 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Burning briquettes through a central single hole
Message-ID: <00c201c13dac$b21b7e20$50e80fc4@home>

Dear Stovers

I have been thinking about the consequences of burning a briquette with a
central hole only. The sawdust burning stoves of yore which were loaded
with a can and central pillar were problematic. The central pillar was
hand-held in the centre and sawdust was packed around it. When tight, the
pillar was removed upwards and a single huge 'briquette' remained with a
hole in the middle, usually about 50mm in diameter. One of the problems
with lighting it up was that as the fire progressed, the burning area
increased steadily until the thing was putting out so much heat it was not
useable. Cooking usually requires exactly the opposite: lots of heat in the
beginning and much less later on for simmering.

If a single hole briquette is placed in a tight fitting container and lit
through the hole only, does not the same problem that dogged the sawdust
stoves re-surface? An increasing heat output as the hole enlarges and the
burning surface expands?

Can the fire be throttled later to limit burning? Won't that creat emission
problems and excessive amounts of charcoal?

Thanks
Crispin

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Sat Sep 15 15:32:17 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Burning briquettes through a central single hole
In-Reply-To: <00c201c13dac$b21b7e20$50e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <3BA3ABEB.43D0E7DB@legacyfound.org>

Crispin,

Buring through the hole only is also not as efficient as lettign some air
around teh annular space ?.5" between the briquette and the stove wall. We
prooved this again with Larry Winarski recently. Our burn profile is a rather
quick rise to 800 deg.centegrade (within 5 to 10 minutes holding for 10 to 20
minutes (depending on composition and quality), then dropping back to glowing
coals with an effective temp of 200 and gradually down to 100 deg.Centigrade
over the remaining 20 to 30 minutes---as measured at the same point (8 to 10
inches inches above the briquette proper). the coals are indeed very much
hotter but unlike the licking flame stage , the heat of the glowing embers is
only realised close onto them. We have found that adjusting the pot to shift it
closer to the heat is not worth the effort for household cooking because, 1)
(per your same reason for cooking), the drop in temp at the pot is suitable for
cooking and 2) the stove would have to become a good deal more complicated and
fragile and expensive.

I think that the sawdust briquete/stove would also taper off to coals in time ,
no ?

Ref your earlier concern about just going out and gettgin on with your stove
work, I suffer the same frustaration about getting funding for my work and have
resolved to just go for it as well--this time in southern Mexico/ Northern
Guatemala. People will leach your ideas all day long but when it comes to
getting funded especialy out of the states for work in development, they
disappear like the wind. Invite those who are encouraging you from the
sidelines to raise funds for you on a contingency basis, ie., they write the
grant and they get a percentage as the grantwriter/ fundraiser and they will
disappear even faster. I agree with you fully just go out and do it then
everybody will come in to follow and perhaps lend real support . You just hope
this will happen before others rip you off !
If I hadn't been doing this for the past 34 years with some success and real
encouragement in the actual development environment with those who really need
the assistance, I would have given up a long time ago.

Aluta continua.

Richard Stanley
here is a reference to our article which details the mentioned burning profile
for our single hole briquettes.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/mcdoug/mcdoug_0201.html

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sat Sep 15 20:22:00 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Fw: Stove Program experience of Eritrea, East Africa
Message-ID: <000201c13e45$39794940$17b16441@computer>

Dan:
I just remembered a referenceable stoves web site that perhaps has not
come to your attention, but certainly has not been publicly mentioned on the
"stoves" site. I urge "stoves" readers to look in on this site and to send
questions for Bob in through "stoves" if you have any.

I believe most of the information was placed there by Robert Van
Buskirk - who is a researcher near you - but who did this nice work as a
volunteer.

Bob and I had a short dialog off-list about his work and he is now a
"stoves" list member. The following is a short excerpt of one of our
e-mails.

Bob: Because of Dan's short time-frame for writing his stoves report for
COP7, this might be a good time to get in any last thoughts about your work
in Eritrea - which I again want to congratulate you on

The following is from Bob's last message to me on the 5th: The stove he
is working on is for cooking enjira - not a universal stove - but with a lot
of applicability to the la plancha stove used in Central/South America. Bob
wrote to me:

> And I should probably post a couple of reports and questions and see
> what answers come back.
>
> Our recent evaluation report is at:
>
> http://www.punchdown.org/rvb/mogogo/MogogoEval200108.html
>
> I think that just reading through
> the household interviews tells pretty much the whole story:
>
> Our more general site at:
>
> http://www.punchdown.org/rvb/mogogo/
>
> But I need to update some of the materials to reflect the current design.
> and show the details of the current design.

Bob: Thanks in advance for anything more you can do to help Dan. I look
forward to seeing your additions.

Alex - I suggest that your site should link as well, if Bob says OK.

Stovers: I think you will enjoy the range of both technical and societal
topics.

Ron

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sat Sep 15 20:22:53 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Stanley on Rocket Stoves and "Holy" Briquettes
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010907143454.01a44310@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <000301c13e45$3a951980$17b16441@computer>

 

Richard:  <FONT face=Arial
size=2> Thanks for reporting this work by yourself and Larry.  A few
questions added within your report.

Larry -  a question for you at the
end. 

<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
<A href="mailto:rstanley@legacyfound.org"
title=rstanley@legacyfound.org>Richard Stanley
To: <A
href="mailto:proaxis.com@legacyfound.org"
title=proaxis.com@legacyfound.org>Larry Winiarski
Cc: <A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
title=stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 11:37
AM
Subject: Re: Who is going to the Biomass
conference?
Stovers esp., Larry Winarski and Dean Stills,
I had the good fortune of meeting Larry Winarski yesterday. We tested two
sizes of our single hole briquettes in respectively,  two separate sizes
of rocket stoves.
The larger 4" dia. briquette was stuffed into the vertical 4" center tube
/combustion chamber of the Rocket Stove. The fit was relatively tight such
that there was little  air flow around the briquette but rather only
through the 1.25" dia.. center hole of the briquette. The tests were
not quantified but what we learned was that the briquette needs either an
annular space about it or multiple holes to burn optimally. (making multiple
holes from our experience, is a good deal more challenging than a single hole
in the current batch fed or continuous feed press designs using the wet
process with its barely-liquid biomass feedstock but that is another subject)
(RWL):  Could you expand on
what was wrong with the combustion in this geometry.
The smaller  2.5" dia. briquette (with its single 3/4" in. dia.. hole)
was fed horizontally into a smaller rocket stove with perhaps a 3" dia. feed
tube. The burn was from the end of the briquette which protruded well into the
vertical tube / combustion chamber . This burned far better especially when
Larry added ashes to insulate the combustion tube. The rocket stove is
ingenious and to my mind, would be adaptable to most any location. I would
highly recommend it for optimizing the burn of briquettes. In this application
We saw the more effective use of the briquettes when fed into burn chamber via
the air feed tube rather than into the combustion chamber directly. Our
continuous feed press, will produce briquettes of much greater length (up to
10" length for the smaller rocket stove and will be ideal for use in it. The
continuous feed press was developed initially in Malawi in 1996-7 .
(RWL):  1.  The
orientation and location of he 2.5" briquette is not clear to me - could you
explain "fed horizontally" a bit more.  Any photos to send in to
Alex?  What height for the briquette?  Was all of the pyrolysis
apparently taking place within the briquette's hole and none on the outside of
the briquette?  Was there esentially no change in the diameter of the
interior hole until the initial pyrolysis flame was complete?  How long
was this initial high-power period and how long for the later low-power
period?  Would it be possible to remove the "charred" briquette as the
high power period is dying out?   Did the power level seem to stay
uniform during the two separate time regimes?  Or, was it more variable
than that?
My guess is that the added 1/4"
outside the briquette provided needed extra secondary air.  Any plans to
do some experiments to vary this distance?
It seems like you might have
also done a test with a 2.5" briquette in a 4" diameter rocket - any report on
that?
Could one add briquettes during
one "burn"?  Or just "batch" - one at a time?
The continuous feed press is
currently being modified here (in Ashland Oregon) to optimize it for
production in rural Mexico and northern Guatemala where we will soon be 
setting up a training center. As we finalize tests in the field with
micro-entrepreneur-producers, I will  post up the design with permission
of Alex English, who  has kindly hosted our basic photos of the 
batch-fed press in operation. The continuous feed press should (if our early
Malawi experience holds)  double or triple the output of the batch feed
design.
(RWL):     Will your continuous feed press be human or
electrically powered?  If electrical - what power level needed or
anticipated?
Larry also gave me a crash course in combustion and explained a lot about
the need for preheated air / and the effect of not having same on condensing
(rather than igniting the gases coming off the fuel source). This preheating
of the air supply through use of their air fuel feed tube and their use of
insulation  about the  combustion chamber makes this stove a real
winner.
Thanks much Larry, for your time and your good work. I will hopefully be
able to return the favor by getting you or the other concerned Aprovecho folks
down to Mexico to co-host a training event with us this fall.
Richard 
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
(RWL to
Richard)    This is a great report.  Thanks.  My
response was delayed because this had a label on the biomass conference - so I
passed it off unfortunately for a later read.  (This is not a censure -
I've made the same error many times myself)
(RWL to Larry):  
Could you briefly summarize the "crash course" comments that you provided to
Richard?  Very glad that Appravecho is working with Richard - and that he
thinks so highly of your past rocket stove development work. 
This is the first time I
remember hearing of "condensing" for work out of Apprevecho.  Can you
expand on your thinking there?(and on its dependency to
preheating).
Any comments also on your ideas for continuous feed
designs alluded to recently by Dean Still?
Ron

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sat Sep 15 20:23:52 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: New Dawn Enrgineering products - re Ron's questions
In-Reply-To: <014901c138fe$4864d1a0$43e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <000801c13e45$41546500$17b16441@computer>

 

Crispin - A few more comments below.  Thanks
for so muchof n effort
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Crispin

To: <A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
title=stoves@crest.org>Stoves ; <A href="mailto:cstcook@net4u.co.za"
title=cstcook@net4u.co.za>Cecil E Cook
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:08
AM
Subject: New Dawn Enrgineering products -
re Ron's questions


Dear Ron

>1.  Back
in 1995, I worked for 5 months in Harare and saw and admired
>the Tso-Tso stove that you have been working
with.  I had one modified
>to become a charcoal-making stove, but had
little time to test it or get it
>shown around.

>We have people using unmodified Basintuthu stoves (single) with
charcoal and it is wonderful.  We are using bigger air holes than
Hancock's but the same number of them.

(RWL):   Not sure that you caught the
difference when I used the term "charcoal-making" - not
charcoal-using.   But I am surprised that it is a good stove for
using charcoal.  Can you describe anything about the differences for the
Basintuthu when using twigs or when using charcoal?

>>I am pleased that you think it might
be manufactured for $20.

>It is going to be difficult.  The Mbaula (coal burner) is made
from paint can and floor mop bucket rejects from a company in
Johannesburg.  There are only so many rejects so mass implementation is
not possible even for the coal burning units.  They are essentially a
poorly constructed coal stove that gets at least some secondary combustion
going.  They are being promoted by the Mid Rand Municipal Council. It is
partial combustion and everyone is raving about how much less they
smoke.  They can be improved a lot more with tinker training only. 
At least it is a start.  The coal smoke from Johannesburg townships is
appalling.  It blocks the highways at 5PM.

(RWL):  I think I asked this elsewhere - but I
wonder if there isn't a place here for coal briquettes - as in
China.



<snip>

>>Are they (ovens) fired one level
high?

>Nope.  As deep as possible to preheat
the top ones on the way down.  Very important.  I don't want any
smoke/CO emerging.

(RWL):     I hope you can
try once also with a single layer.  Seems like the efficiency might
improve.

>...most or all of the flame being in the
central hole.

Nope.  Most is on the outside though they
burn all over when hot enough.

(RWL):  Being square, and maybe
separated nicely, you have the equivalent of holes already with good radiative
heat capture.
Your results seem to contradct those of Atanley - and
therefore it would be good to track down why.

>>It appears
that the  "holey" briquettes are completely pyrolyzed before the

>resultant "charcoal" begins to be
consumed.

>That I have not seen.  Charcoaling
is normally the result of insufficient to air to burn properly.  We have
to burn fuel at a rate of about 10 grammes per second to get 2.5 KW. 
Choking the air reduces the heat output _rate_ whether or not it give more
total heat by the end of its life.  Trying to burn them through the
centre hole only would explain that pyrolyzing effect.  I have doubts
about the combustion efficiency of a briquette that can't burn on the outside,
also about the ability of the cook to control the heat output rate with air
control when the area being burned is increasing with time - exactly the
opposite of what is required in cooking.  

(RWL):  I haven't seen it either - just
reports.  We have been using a 30% higher heat output - based on 18
MJ/kg.  What is the source of your 2.5 kW number?  As I understand
the Stanley geometries - there is no special effort to burn through the
central hole - it just happens because of the geometry.  They are not
takng pains either to restrict ("choke") air flow.  As I understand the
situation, the  hole size only begins to enlarge after pyrolysis is
complete adnd combustion begins on the surface of the resulting "char". 
If you could try various separations of your square briquettes - such that the
proximity of the briquettes is appreciably less (the spacing greater) than the
central hole size - perhaps you would see the same effect.  It is not yet
clear (to me) how the heat output varies with time - but this should be
controllable if the air flow can be controlled.

> I am very interested to hear about the fire
inside the hole heating up the 'opposite side' to speed initial combustion.


(RWL)  This was reported by
Richard Stanley.  We were  told by Tami Bond that Chinese coal
briquettes could only be lighted with the holes.  The reason we are all
quite sure is in the efficiency of capture of the optical energy to be used
for getting the surface temperatuer higher and therefore a more rapid transfer
of heat into the pyrolysis zone of the briquette interior (and therefore the
gas comes out more rapidly - and right where its ignition will help most to
have positive feedback.

>>Anything more you can supply from your
experience would be helpful

>Probably - not sure.  One bite at a
time.  I am not all that experienced though my path has been quite
different from what I see you guys talking about.   I wish I had
a CO meter.

(RWL) We all wish for one.  I have been talking to
two different local researchers.  I think in a year or so that problem
will be well on its way to being solved.  Any "stover" able to offer a
low cost CO-meter (and other pollutants) alternative today?

>>Do you
think we will ever see human-powered extruders for briquettes like

>>you, Richard, and Paul have been
investigating?

>For lignin-bound briquettes, I don't think that is a
possibility.  I assisted with the installation of a German one in
Butterworth in '82 and it has WAY too much power requirement to be done by
hand.  That place gave away the resulting logs and it still failed
BTW.  They went back to chucking the sawdust into the furnace to get rid
of it.  The unit cost $80.000.

(rwl):     Note a question on that from
myself to Richard today on his plans for an extruder.  We are all hoping
that your experience with hand-powered equipment will find some regime where
hand power is possible.

>We have had
considerable discussion on this list about lightweight insulative

>bricks.

>That is very interesting.  There is a
product from coal combustion called silicon spheres or something like that.
They can be added to cement and fire cement to increase insulation
considerably and decrease weight.  The spheres are very small and are
formed in the combustion process.  Ash Resources in Johannesburg sells
them, graded by size if you want.  I considered using them in our bread
baking ovens but they wern't good enough insulators and too small to seal in
as loose fill.

(RWL):  Let us know if you can
get some spheres to try. I will look also locally.  I had not
previously heard that such were available from coal combustion.  Better
insulative brick manufacture is still a great topic for this
list.

>>...a lot of interest recently on the use
of a lot of paper being added to the
>>clay before firing (giving added strength
to a lighter product).

>Sawdust is probably better if the pore size is not a problem. 
Pulping the paper fine enough would be a problem, manually.  There are
people making concrete hollow blocks using sawdust and it saves a lot of
weight - about 35%.

(RWL):  But they may be trying
to save production money on a block that is stronger than is needed for a
stove.  Anything you can do to encourage buyers of your brick and block
making hardware to try some tests to get even lighter blocks could prove very
helpful to the stoves world.  We are looking for bricks and blocks that
can float.  Sawdust pore size should not be a problem - might even want
them larger.  The issue is perhaps whether there is a way of mixing
ingredients so that we can get some trapped air bubbles without blowing the
brick apart during firing.

>>...your
hand-powered mixers with internal chains rather than blades.  Was this
your own innovation?

>Yes.  We are going to use 3 similar mixers to pulp paper for the
big sawdust briquette operation starting in Nov.

(RWL):  Nice innovation (I think
- not being knowledgeable on such matters)!  It looks like an elegant
approach.

>...and your
work with wire product manufacturing equipment.

>It is the fence making and soil-cement brick
machines that keep the company afloat.  We actually make a lot of things
that are not on the website when people ask for them.

>>Can you make grills and similar from
larger wires?

>We do not have a weaving technology /per se/ as a regular item. 
I have made years ago a means for producing woven steel wire mesh like that
used by builders to screen their sand.  It has not gone anywhere but the
mesh is very expensive so producing it in 3x6 foot sheets as a home industry
is quite viable.  Certainly a 10mm hole size could be hand made even when
the wire is hard (450+MPa).  I am not so sure about making grates. 
Nail wire perhaps.  A company makes them here commercialy and they are
really cheap (less than $1 for a 480x365mm).

(RWL):  I asked because grates are important for
combustion - but generally burn out fast.  Maybe there is a unique low
cost material around that could be used - for which you could supply the
wire-forming manufacturing hardware.

>>Please feel free to tell us of the
importance of shops like yours
>>for stove manufacture.

>Low cost stoves have to be produced by
someone who is already making a large number of other products to justify the
investment in tooling.  It would scare you to see how fast a modern
production plant can be.  They can produce 1 per second!  We want to
get someone to make 10,000 per day for us eventually but that is years
away.  It the product are not very efficient, good looking and
convenient, the market won't develop.  Hancock found people wouldn't buy
them until he put them into a large cardboard box which added a lot to the
cost.

(RWL):  This will be a topic
down the road for the Shell Foundation people to worry about.  The Smith
paper on the infrastructure to produce 100 milion stoves in China seemed to
imply both centralized and local manufacturing faciities (mostly for cast iron
parts it seemed).   I believe the Hancock TsoTso used rolling and
welding techniques?  We have had virtually no discussion of such
stoves.

>>Do you believe that smaller or larger
scales will be your more serious competitors?

>Interesting question.  I think smaller scale will compete only
when people have been educated /en masse/ at high school on how stoves
work.  Big scale production so far has concentrated on anthracite stoves
in which people burned wood very inefficiently.  They are no threat at
all because those guys don't understand combustion either.  We have quite
a pathetic situation on our hands.  Coal stoves are promoted as a status
item in Swazi rural areas.  Every family that buys one and gives up
cooking over an open fire doubles their wood consumption because they are such
inappropriate pieces of technology.

(RWL):  Giving us more of a
description on what is wrong with the design could be very helpful. 
Thanks to Tami for following this line of inquiry.

>>...I saw a nice similar operation in
Masvingo (Zimbabwe) - but think it is out of business now.

>That may have been Dave Hancock hisself when he was at the GTZ
technical school there.

(RWL):  As I think I said
earlier, a description of this stove (or yours which is apparently similar)
would be helpful to others. 

I  know there are some on the
list who have been associated with GTZ (the German "USAID").  Can any
stover report on what GTZ is doing now in stove work?  


>>I hope that is enough fuel for thought for today.

Best regards
Crispin

(RWL):  That was great.  Hope it was not
too much. Hopefully something others will say will help pay back your big
effort on all these questions.  You obviously have a great baackground to
help this list.

Ron

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sat Sep 15 20:24:48 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Reply to Ron Larsen 9-9-01
In-Reply-To: <014801c138fe$462282c0$43e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <000901c13e45$45a6a820$17b16441@computer>

 

Crispin:

Sorry for not getting in some
response earlier to this fine response below.  See a few more comments
interspersed below
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Crispin

To: <A href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"
title=stoves@crest.org>Stoves ; <A href="mailto:cstcook@net4u.co.za"
title=cstcook@net4u.co.za>Cecil E Cook
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:22
AM
Subject: Reply to Ron Larsen 9-9-01

Dear Ron

Thanks for the compliment on the website - it is entirely
homegrown and coded manually by myself and my son Jeremy who is a robotics
technologist working in Toronto.  He assists on the side and saves the
day from time to time.  The second website is identical.

You ask a lot of questions and I am not sure how I can
handle them all!

First, we are not doing very well 'in the business' in that
making money from selling things to poor people is not how to make a
commercial success of things.  We j-u-s-t get by and have a mortgage
hanging overhead that gets bigger with time.  We deal primarily with hand
operated machinery as a choice.  This has been going on since May
'84.  Before that I was getting a national AT unit going in Transkei,
RSA.  Before that I was in rural water supply in Swaziland.  We make
about 30 different products as and when people ant them.  Our staff
complement is 16.

(RWL):  I also looked
again at your first introductory message and saw that you were very active in
environmental and renewable energy matters in South Africa.  Could you
clarify how you or others are getting ready for "Rio+10"?  You have
perhaps seen the requests from Paul Anderson for assistance in having a stoves
presence next September.  Can you identify anyone in Jbrg with a possible
interest in seeing that?  I really think that your position being
hundreds of kilometers away is too far - so I am not asking for your own
involvement.

The Comercial End of A.T. Development

There is a continuous conflict between people wanting to do
innovative things and the commercial world of getting them 'out there'. 
One problem is that there are many people who are paid to compete against
small private companies like ours.  Kenya, Zimbabwe and Botswana are
places where this happens. 

It is usually felt that information should be freely handed
around 'to help the cause' and many innivations have been extended to the poor
and needy through that process.  When I was busy inventing things every
few weeks that would employ more people in Transkei's rural areas, I found
that NO commercial company was willing to produce comercial quantities of a
new device unless huge numbers were ordered.  There was no realistic
method of getting things out of the workshop and into the stores.  I
found this distressing and decided to start a company that would do exactly
that, even if it was for one thing only - a fence making machine called the
Netwire Board.

Well, 17 years later, we still can't find partners who are
willing to invest in such a venture.  Activity and funding seems to fall
to 'academic' institutions which are devoted mostly to getting people a
Masters Degree in rural development (etc) and private companies intent on
squeezing every last nickle out of some or other 'innovation'.

When development organizations look for some way to get
their latest technology of the hour (usually about 24 months behind the
current state of the art) they go looking for a 'small private local company'
to manufacture things.  Being one of those companies attracts the ire of
those who are paid by universities and NGO's and parastatals to do similar
things because it looks like someone is making money out of 'their'
work.  It is no sweat off their brows to point at a private company and
accuse them of protectionism (of information) and sucking the poor dry by
overcharging and all that that entails.  In reality, the most successful
small AT 'manufacturers' in the field or at grassroots level are actually
making a living selling consulting services to development organizations and
thereby subsidizing the actual manufacturing process which is done only on a
cost-recovery basis to keep everyone happy.  It is, in a sense, flim-flam
because it is not really viable nor reproduceable.

This bind in which the development 'industry' finds itself
means that in the longer run, virtually NO useful appropriate technology
invention or process makes it out of the hands of the development set and into
the greater commercial world.  Every once in a while you will see an
entrepreneur drop out of 'development' and into 'industry' to commercialize a
new kind of vacuum cleaner, for example, or bread box, but there is plainly
little to point to that comes from the NGO circle and makes its appearance as
a 'normal' (non-AT) product on the supermarket shelf.

The relevance of this to stoves is critical.  There is
almost no point getting a perfect stove invented if it cannot be made and
distributed commercially.  Overhead-funded NGO's can't be relied on to do
something like that forever.  I greatly favour get-up-and-running money
for a new product, but it has to be done in a way that a major impact is
eventually made.

I have noticed in the few brief days on this list that there
are people from both private and non-private employment and that there is a
lot of mutual respect regarding issues I have openly described.  I am
hoping to learn from you all how to participate in these discussions in a way
that does not take bread from the mouths of contributors and still results in
those in need benefitting fully from the results of the work of people
dedicated to improving the lives of people on this plant.

I am not proud of my lack of fiancial success after so many
years of trying hard.  I wish I were either better businessman or
fundraiser!  What I have managed to do is to press on even when the major
section of a development field has gone off on what I consider a
tangent. 

(RWL):  I am sure I speak
for others that we all hope for your future success.  Perhaps by having
this dialogue, some list member will be able to offer leads for the finances
or commercial orders that you need - especially knowing of he intelligence and
fervor that you bring to trying to provide better stoves (on this list we have
to limit our thoughts to that part of your operation.

>Are Stovers On the Right Path?

>I fear that the message I read about combustion and
briquetting is one a path I don't consider optimal.  A lot of work is put
into making biofuels available and there isn't enough application of known
combustion methods being applied to burning the precious fuel.  I was
reading a modelling magazine from the UK the other day and they have
'efficiency test' events the way people have car rallys and boat races. 
I appreciated the request a couple of days ago for a standard burning test so
we can make comparisons across the world without having to physically to get
together.

(RWL):  1.  Can you
give us this modelling magazine citation.  I agree that the "efficiency
test events" are needed - and I believe we will see that happen through the
Shell Foundation activities.  The stove community has simply not had
support to see that those test comparisons take place.  The closest
things to comparative tests are coming through this list - where we hear
of results and some comparisons are possible.

There are still major problems
in defining a standard test.  Many years ago we had some discussion on
this topic - and we should come back again.  I think in the 80's a group
met on standardized testing under USAID sponsorship.  I don't  llike
the way they handled the value of left-over charcoal - but otherwise the test
looks OK.  This will probably be worked out by those working on the Shell
program.

In 1981 I saw a comparative
test of Jikos at the Nairobi UN conference - I believe it was very useful in
getting better jikos.  The time is past to do more.

I am not sure about your
concern about not using "known combustion methods".  Before you joined
the list, there was some discussion about Richard Stanley's work on "holey"
briquettes and the surprisingly large central flame - and a period where there
was only pyrolysis - from the inside out.  Because this was new to those
of us interested in the production of charcoal, we have had lots of recent
dialogue on this topic.  Are you aware of any published material on this
subject?

> A great many of the stoves and burning devices
touted for poor people on the net, including most of those shown at the
conference in India do not have provision for secondary combustion built into
them.  The comparison between briquettes with one or more hole doesn't
mean much if at the same time no secondary combustion is provided for. 
People are gathering fuel (biomass) and making briquettes and wasting far too
much of the heat through incomplete burning.  For example, burning 1
grame of butane to CO yields about 40 MJ of heat.  Burning it to CO2
yields 65% more.  The loss through incomplete burning of biofuels costs
Africa hundreds of millions of tons of wood each year, and that wood was
collected by women mostly, with better things to do with their time than
trudge up and down finding it.  Dave Hancock (now in Malawi) was right on
the money when he introduced the Tsotso stove in the mid-80's.  He
produced about 30,000 as far as I heard.

(RWL):   I think
many of us on the list will agree with you about the need to work harder
on complete combustion.  Those of us working with charcoal-making stoves
have to worry about it since so much of the total air has to be secondary air
- and the two types of air cannot be mixed.  Besides the inefficiencies
of incomplete combustion - the uncombusted gases are very serious contributors
to global climate change - much worse than CO2.  And recently, we are
beginning to learn that these PICs have big health impacts.  You are
right about the problem - I am not sure you are right that this group doesn't
understand the problem.

>I humbly suggest that together we first look closely at
improving the fuel efficiency of stoves - mud, clay, steel and open - to
promote savings, convenience, rapid starting and power control by applying the
well known principles of primary and secondary combustion.  <FONT
size=2>Everyone can benefit from this - private manufacturers and those
promoting home-built and micro-enterprise manufactured units.

(RWL):  I believe the TsoTso has taken good
steps to provide for good amounts of secondary air.  Are you are of any
careful measurements on the output gases?

Ron, I will reply to some of your question in another
message.

Many thanks
Crispin in Ezulwini Valley

(RWL):  Thanks also for your
response.    With work like yours we are slowly making
progress.     Ron

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sun Sep 16 08:07:08 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Ron's Questions again
Message-ID: <003b01c13e42$f4efbb80$72e80fc4@home>

Dear Ron

Regarding the Mbaula

>> A short chimney is used to get the volatiles burned off. That is
>>made from a 10 litre reject paint can.

>(RWL): Is this a combined cooking and heating stove or just one or
>the other? It sounds like the stove with small chimney may be
>venting into the room.

This is a simple empty cylinder that is temporarily used to get the fire
going. It is removed after the volatiles have burned off. The coal used is
very cheap and cost is a primary consideration. We are working to make the
briquettes very cheap and as available in one township to start with.

>(RWL): You are working with both briquettes and stove manufacture.
>It would be helpful to the full list to have a description given in greater
>detail of the TsoTso and your own modifications.

I can consider putting that on the website www.newdawn-engineering.com I
sent in my paper for the Botswana GEF/SGP networking meeting tomorrow
(Monday) and it basically answers those questions. There is a single .pcx
file that shows the fire principles without dimensions. I will try to get
around to it. I have delayed my departure to JHB until tomorrow but I will
not get to the 'sire work' for a while - too busy.

>...I think they are unique in having a removeable fairly heavy fuel
>container.

The single and double fire models have a simple removeable container because
it is easier to run the stove that way. People want to burn it for
rotracted periods sometimes.

>My perception is that your briquettes (square) won't fit in the small
>stove (round).

We have reduced the briquette size to 67x67x40mm in order to get them into
the small grate. The grate properties are right and I don't want to mess
with them for the 2.5 Kw version. The stove works fine and we are going to
spend time on the briquetting rather than changing the Basintuthu Single.

>They are apparently intended for your larger baking ovens.

The Baking Oven is identical in the heating department. The grate is
different in that is has a round loop handle welded over it to make its
removel from the stove easy. The stoves are supplied with a long hook for
this purpose. That and pushing bits of wood around and lifting the plates
off the stove. Besides, it is fun to play with fire!

>Could you clarify on whether your responses above on the Bolo and
>Mbaula are related entirely to coal

Yes they are coal burning devices only, in my experience. Perhaps other
could comment. They would hold far too much charcoal to be useful.

>>We have people using unmodified Basintuthu stoves (single) with
>>charcoal and it is wonderful.

>(RWL): Not sure that you caught the difference when I used the
>term "charcoal-making" - not charcoal-using.

I speak of charcoal using. I have not figure out why we want to make
charcoal in a stove. In my uninformed opinion the layout for charcoal and
wood burning stoves is different. We did get a reliable report of charcoal
use in Basintuthu soves from two very different sources. Both were from
people who were used to using charcoal as a fuel and tried it out.

Charcoal likes to be burned in a contained area with reflective walls and
preheated secondary air, apparently. Two litres of charcoal apparently
burns for several hours which surprised me. I have not bothered to try it
myself simply because of lack of time - though I realize that is not a very
good excuse. There is virtually no charcoal available in Swaziland anyway
so it does not apply to us.

>Can you describe anything about the differences for the Basintuthu
>when using twigs or when using charcoal?

>>The coal smoke from Johannesburg townships is appalling. It blocks
>>the highways at 5PM.

>(RWL): I think I asked this elsewhere - but I wonder if there isn't
>a place here for coal briquettes - as in China.

My son Nigel lives in the second most polluted city in the world : Tai Yuan
City about 5 hrs west of Beijing. He says it is so bad that it is difficult
to go out of doors on many days. Eye-stinging soot and an atmosphere filled
with particulate matter. This indicates to my uninformed mind that the coal
is not being burned very well. A lot of that smoke contains fuel. In
short, I haven't seen anything about Chinese briquettes that makes them
better than the German "eier" (pronounced eye-yah if the spelling is not
clear). The German ones had no holes and they were what heated houses for
decades. Made from coal dust compressed with a small amount of binder.
Look like elongated hockey pucks.

I do like your explanation of lighting through the holes. Perhaps painting
the inside silver would help in those first few monents.

>(RWL): I hope you can try [burning] once also with a single layer.
>Seems like the efficiency might improve.

It is just a smaller fire. I need the fresh cold fuel to be brought up to
temperature. When the fire gets old and there isn't much left in the
bottom, what remains is a single layer. It is normal, whatever the fuel, to
have only a few teaspoons of white ash left when the fire goes out. I don't
like to have to add fuel every 5 or 10 minutes, though.

>>Most is on the outside though they burn all over when hot enough.

>(RWL): Being square, and maybe separated nicely, you have the
>equivalent of holes already with good radiative heat capture.

The grate is importrant to getting that. However I want the heat to be
available for preheating the secondary air otherwise the secondary air
chills the smoke from the primary combustion and condenses it.

>Your results seem to contradict those of Atanley - and therefore it would
>be good to track down why.

I think we are chasing different things. I am very concerned to get
efficient secondary combustion going which involves heating the air while
not letting too much cold air in through the upper ports, and he I think, is
after burning gassified wood. All wood sort of burns as a 'gas'. Why not
brn it right there where it comes off the source? The heat from the
combustion will drive the next level off as a gas.

>We have been using a 30% higher heat output - based on 18 MJ/kg.
>What is the source of your 2.5 kW number?

I got my heat content from an analysis of fuelwood contain in the 1916
edition (first) of the engineering Handbook from McGraw Hill. It gives 13.2
MJ as the heat content. This may be incorrect but it is based on cordwood
rather than theoretical content. It can't be far wrong because the effect
of burning seems to work backwards to that figure. The water content is in
any case far more important that a few MJ in the model. 30% water content
renders the fuel impotent. We have to consider the effects of an afternoon
shower on briquettes, and damp summertime storage in unventilated shacks.

>It is not yet clear (to me) how the heat output varies with time -
>but this should be controllable if the air flow can be controlled.

If you choke the fire too much you will get charcoal forming instead of
proper burning. We try to avoid that by having a fire small enough to do
the job while letting enough air in to get complete combustion. Building a
small fire is better than choking a big one.

>We were told by Tami Bond that Chinese coal briquettes could only
>be lighted with the holes.

That may have to do with the coal used in those particular briquettes. We
have enough coal to last 500 years in Swaziland but it is useless for
cooking as it is nearly impossible to light a small amount.

>>I wish I had a CO meter.

>(RWL) We all wish for one.

OK! And what do we do now?

>We have had considerable discussion on this list about lightweight
insulative
>bricks.

>>[Silicon Spheres]

>(RWL): Let us know if you can get some spheres to try.

Hollow spheres are available from Mr van Skalkwyk 0027-11-787-5335
Cell 0027-82-893-2092

They produce ceramic cements for furnaces with a K value of about 0.77 which
was not interesting to us. They have higher limits of about 1200 and 1600
degrees C. I wanted it for lower temps. I can easily get K values of 0.33
with other things. We make a bread making oven for 16 loaves with a total
heat loss through the walls of 450 watts.

>We are looking for bricks and blocks that can float. Sawdust pore size
>should not be a problem - might even want them larger. The issue is
>perhaps whether there is a way of mixing ingredients so that we can
>get some trapped air bubbles without blowing the brick apart during firing.

One way would be to make fired clay bricks instead of cement ones.

>>[Grates]

>(RWL): I asked because grates are important for combustion - but
>generally burn out fast.

I am leaning towards stainless steel because when it is thin it is cheap and
light to transport. When you are sure that coal is going to be put into at
least some of the stoves, mild steel is nearly useless.

>(RWL): This will be a topic down the road for the Shell Foundation people
>to worry about. The Smith paper on the infrastructure to produce 100
>million stoves in China seemed to imply both centralized and local
>manufacturing faciities (mostly for cast iron parts it seemed).

I have a beef with the Chinese stoves. They are notoriously inefficient
partly because of the need for home heating. They are widely used in
Mongolia. The coal is expensive on Mongolia and there was a year long
project to improve the stoves (local cast iron models) with Brits in it I
think. Anyway, towards the end they were getting nowhere at all. I was
contacted by an old contact from California asking if I could go there to
make something happen in a short time. I replied, "Sure" and to convince
them I was able to, I gave them a small obvious improvement that would
produce a major effect. That was immediately passed along to the project
people on Ulaan Bataar who said, "Sheesh!" They went out and immediately
implemented it, saved their asses and their project and I got nothing.
Heaven only knows what they are doing now. Trawling this goup's mails I
suppose.

>(RWL): Giving us more of a description on what is wrong with the
>design could be very helpful.

There is no secondary air and the stove is so heavy that it can't heat up
the burning environment to get the wood hot. They smoke terribly.

And on with the (F1) race!

Regards
Crispin

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From tombreed at home.com Sun Sep 16 09:17:58 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Charcoal Making Stoves
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913171639.01a54e30@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <003a01c13eae$dbde5fe0$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

 

Dear Stovers:

When I ran the first "charcoal making stove" (Ron Larson's
terminology; "inverted downdraft gasifier", my technical name) in 1985 I was of
course delighted at how evenly it produced a very combustible gas/vapor. 

 
However, I wasn't so delighted that it first generated a very
rich gas from the volatiles, leaving 20% charcoal.  (My propane stove does
not leave 30% of the energy in the tank!)

Ron Larson called me about 1994 to ask if I knew of any way to
use the volatiles from wood for cooking while making charcoal.  In Africa
charcoal is often a very valuable product.  The rural housewife
could become a small charcoal industry while feeding her family!  I
was delighted to tell him that I was working on exactly that process and we
collaborated on the paper "A Wood-Gas Stove for Developing Countries" (Energy
for Sustainable Development, July 1996, see my website <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com). 

With Alex English I discovered the mechanism for making Lots
of charcoal (very dry wood) or very little (30% moisture content wood).  As
the reaction zone proceeds DOWN through the fuel supply, each layer must ignite
the next layer.  If it's dry, it ignites the next layer immediately; 
if wet, it burns whatever charcoal it must until it can "jump" to the next
layer. 

In our more sophisticated forced draft (Turbo) stoves we
provide means for changing the conditions to generate "charcoal gas" (CO -
shhh...) which makes a beautiful cooking flame, but complicates the
mechanism. 

Agreed that charcoal making is in general a dirty, inefficient
business - unless you have use for the volatiles as well. 

Yours
truly,          TOM
REED

I am now looking for other ways to burn all the fuel. 

         Dr. Thomas
Reed  The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO
80401303 278 0558; <FONT
size=2>tombreed@home.com; <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Stanley" <<A
href="mailto:rstanley@legacyfound.org"><FONT
size=2>rstanley@legacyfound.org>
To: "Crispin" <<A
href="mailto:crispin@newdawn.sz">crispin@newdawn.sz<FONT
size=2>>
Cc: "Neal Van Milligen" <<A
href="mailto:CAVM@aol.com">CAVM@aol.com<FONT
size=2>>; "Apolinário J Malawene" <<A
href="mailto:ajmalawene01@hotmail.com"><FONT
size=2>ajmalawene01@hotmail.com>; "Bob and Karla
Weldon" <<FONT
size=2>bobkarlaweldon@cs.com>; "Ed Francis"
<<FONT
size=2>cfranc@ilstu.edu>; "Tsamba--Alberto Julio"
<<FONT
size=2>ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz>; <<A
href="mailto:clucas33@yahoo.com">clucas33@yahoo.com<FONT
size=2>>; <<FONT
size=2>clucas@zebra.uem.mz>; <<A
href="mailto:TOMBREED@HOME.COM">TOMBREED@HOME.COM<FONT
size=2>>; "Paul S. Anderson" <<A
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu<FONT
size=2>>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Stoves meetings and relationship to the Shell
Foundation
> Stovers,> >
Congradulations Crispin: You  ask the "King has no clothes" question we
all> need to ask: Why make charcoal at all . It is dirty and would
involve a whole> additional step in produciton. I doubt if one could
economically justify> charcoal making through our wet low pressure
briquetting process.> It would seem to make more sense to just make the
darn briquette burn more> efficiently. LArry mnwinarski and Deal stills
and others of Approvecho are good> references  as would be Tom 
Breed. On our side, we are doing some burn tests> using a calorimeter at
our local Southern Oregon University Chem Dept and will> have some hard
and comparative data fairly soon.> > Richard Stanley>
> Crispin wrote:> > > Dear Stovers in the region>
>> > >1.B.  Unfortunately the subject of charcoal-making
>stoves is similarly not> > very well documented - except
>through the Alex English web site.> >
>        Paul adds:  We have not
looked at this.  Can >we?   Should we?> > Carlos,
what do you think?  >Crispin, have you looked at this?>
>> > I remain unconvinced that making charcoal is at all desireable
in a wood or> > biomass burning stove.  I awat convincing
evidence that there is merit in> > it.  As it involves
necessarily limiting the oxygen supply to the fire which> > definitely
produces CO, I am wondering what all the excitement is about.> > Can
someone explain it to me.  Why would I want charcoal from a stove?>
>> > >2.  All the focus is coming into Johannesburg in
>September 2002.  We who> > do work in SADC areas >have an
especially great opportunity to make an> > >impact.  Crispin,
Carlos, how involved in this would >YOU or your close> > associates
want to be with this?> >> > I am very likely to be available
for a limited time it if relats to showing> > good equipment.  By
then we should have a staff member who can do it for us.> > I am also
likely to be involved in other areas as I am "committee'd"> >
already.> >> > >A.  On the Shell Dialog -  At
the Shellfoundation web >site, I looked> > briefly at the minutes
of the July London >meeting (mostly PV it seemed).> >> >
As I understand it, the Europeans are funding events at which European>
> technologies (high tech) from European firms will be offered at>
> subsidized/loan prices to 3rd world countries.  We will then buy
these> > technologies from Europe.  There is very little low-tech
product coming into> > Africa from Europe.> >> >
>I found a small summary at <FONT
size=2>www.wri.org - which >starts with 50 MW
projects> > as a "small" project.> >> > 70% of our
energy comes from wood.  And we are at the top of the list for> >
Africa for development.  Who is going to help the 'real' small
projects?> >> > >10.  The main new stove ideas that
I am excited about >coming from this> > list recently relate to the
possible >cleanliness and charcoal-making> > potential for "holey"
>briquettes.> >> > I am pretty sure this has nothing to
do with the holes.  The holes simply> > limit the combustion to
the point where the fuel burns so badly that it> > can't do anything
else but make charcoal.  You can get the same effect by> >
burning a solid briquette in a stove with almost no air getting in.>
>> > >If any of you have projects that have already achieved
>economic returns or> > demonsrated other key lessons >for
sustainablity, ...> >> > We have a cheap simple stove that
burns fuel completely and which uses 1/4> > of the fuel of competing
devices prevalent on the market.  I'd say that> >
qualifies.> >> > 'Nuff said.> > Regards to
all> > Crispin>

From ronallarson at qwest.net Sun Sep 16 10:31:15 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Needed research
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913171639.01a54e30@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <012a01c13ebb$da199280$4c69e1cf@computer>

 

Stovers:

This message is to add to
today's message fom Tom Reed responding to Paul Anderson's off-line paragraph
which read:
>What changes
would you make to your IDD  stove (version without motorized blower)? 
Ed and I (with help from others, >possibly my contacts in Mozambique and
Swaziland) could try to build it.  But I hardly know where to start without
>substantial guidance from you.  I do not see it much as a money/funding
problem, at least not for the simple materials. 
Paul (and others):  

Glad to receive your offer
to do more development.  I would start your research by returning to the
days just before there was a "stoves" list - when the dialog on the IDD or
charcoal-making stove was first taking place on the list
"bioenergy". 

That dialog started on December
21, 1995 with a stoves question coming in from a Swedish researcher Sven-Erik
Tiberg
<A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/199512/msg00064.html">http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/199512/msg00064.html
Tom Miles and I responded on the same day. 
The dialog got suficiently complex that Tom Miles soon split us off into a
separate "stoves" list.  You will find in
early January 1996 some more detailed plans and descriptions from
myself.  The combustion chamber height works out well with coffee can
dimension ratios (a height somewhat larger than the diameter.).  (Pizza
parlors throw away an amazing number of large tomato paste cans every
day.)

An early message was from Mark
Bryden at Iowa State - calling for competitions.  I still know of only one
student "competition" - at the Colorado School of Mines, under Professor Bob
Knecht.  Lots of innovative approaches will come out if you can get your
Illinois students involved in a classroom activity.  Mark is also a modeler
- and I am still not aware of any useful modeling work on these stoves (and I
think this is the easiest stove to model and I have recently found a fortran
finite difference model that is available to anyone wanting to take up this
challenge).

There were many useful
innovations thrown in early - all of which need further development.  The
ones I liked best were from Tom Duke, a farmer relatively near you in Iowa who
reported on his having 1) successfully tried the approach using only two holes
in the ground and 2).a charcoal-making space heater from a tall piece of stove
pipe.  Elsen Karstad went larger - using
needs in Kenya as his guide.  Alex English added aspirators and went
larger also - even up to the scale of bales of hay.  Richard Boyt did
beautiful work with tin snips - adding multiple layers of metal to get better
efficiency.  Richard is a former professor of Ceramics at Crowder College
in Kansas and maybe has done some work with ceramics forms.  There were
people saying charcoal-making couldn't possibly work - and we need to understand
why they were saying so.  I am unfortunately leaving out some others - but
I think if you review that early history you will find some R&D leads that
suggest themselves.  The important point is that there are many variations
that need to be studied to best meet local needs.  Stove mechanical
stability is a problem worth working on for child-safety reasons.  We need
a way to economicall get some light output from these stoves (I have some high
temperature glss that may be the way).

In many places, I think the best
material will be pottery-based - as it is refractory and cheap.  I have
tried some and they work - but certainly not yet optimized.   Even
mild winds are disastrous - so you must shield the stove if to be used outside -
not so easy with ceramics alone.  Also we have not yet heard enough about
using waste heat for heating the secondary air (may not be useful for he primary
air since so little is needed).  The electrically powered ZZstoves do this
very well - and I wonder what their emissions properties are??

The major unsolved problem
I see is the exact design for optimizing convective heat transfer to the cook
pot.  This list has used a sleeve distance of 5-10 mm, but I think we need
a lot more work that is dependent on the "sleeve" height.  Sam Baldwin's
VITA report has some theory - but I am not aware of any experimental proof of
his results.  There has been a lot of discussion of samovars on our list as
a way to get better heat transfer for at least the boiling water
application.  I am not aware of any dedicated research with that design
(which might work out very well with "holey" briquettes)

I am aware of absolutely no work
that attempts to optimize the early pyrolysis phase of "holey"
briquettes.   I now think our early work on charcoal-making stoves put
too much emphasis on controlling radial air flow around the fuel.  Someone
reported on using a  very holey "lower coffee can" - and that is behind my
recent questions to Crispin about making wire baskets.  The phenomenon of
the "holey" briquet only pyrolyzing from the inside is indicative of this nice
feature of radiative energy capture. 

Richard Stanley said today that
he has given up on modifying a pyrolyis stove to better burn the charcoal
produced.  See my challenge today to stovers to try to solve that problem -
if one chooses not to save the charcoal (which I like to save primarily because
it can help pay for higher quality stoves).

Should you think the charcoal is
important (as I do) - there is plenty of room for innovative thinking on how to
quench the pyrolysis process best (removing a "basket", spreading, water,
closing vs tipping the primary can, a closed storage can, etc?)

I strongly agree with Tom that
we need to find ways to better mix the secondary air and pyrolysis gases under
natural convection conditions.   I have unsuccessfully tried a few
geometries to achieve mixing before ignition. Messages from Alex English may
provide some leads.  (Alex? Tom?) 

There is another set of ideas
that we could follow relative to blowers.  Your University staff that is
skilled in electronics can perhaps find ways to get low cost variability - and
couple with PV cells or thermoelectrics (or several other strictly mechanical
approaches mentioned last April by Andrew Heggie).  The issues of blowers
and charcoal-making should be kept separate - one can possibly do a better job
at charcoal-making with blowers.  I think you have concluded that natural
convection is more appropriate in remote areas and you may be right.  But
this needs more research.

I think there may be a great
role for R&D on catalytic materials to insert in the secondary combustion
region that could lead either to better flame holding characteristics - or to
cleaner combustion.  We need experts in catalysis for all stoves,
probably.

Another wonderful topic is to
look more carefully at the emissions from the "charcoal-making" stove (and
compare to other stoves).  I believe it to be the cleanest stove around but
this is not yet proven.  Perhaps your University Chemists or Chemical
Engineers will find this challenging.  We need better meters.

Returning to your basic question
- the ideas are simple:  get enough combustion volume height to get a good
draft, separate the primary (which needs to be able to be closed tightly) and
secondary air (need research on whether there may be some value in controlling
the secondary air - which so far has worked out well to only control the primary
air), pack the (as_dry_as_possible) fuel tightly, and top light (need some more
R&D to get best means of lighting - I use large Pine needles).

I now think I have made too long
a list of R&D areas - like Tom, I think it will be best to just try a few
tests.  If there are any problems, there will be many on the list able to
suggest reasons and solutions.  Best of luck.

Ron

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sun Sep 16 11:30:44 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Stanley and the single hole
Message-ID: <006c01c13e5f$6cc74b20$72e80fc4@home>

Dear Stanley

>Buring through the hole only is also not as efficient as lettign some
>air around the annular space ?.5" between the briquette and the
>stove wall.

I agree. For several reasons actually, one being that the stove must be
larger for any given output of heat as the whole outside is not burning
simultaneously.

>I think that the sawdust briquete/stove would also taper off to coals in
>time , no ?

When you are getting a good burn inside a hot grate and the air supply is
not allowed to become too big (cooling effect) it burns down to embers. Do
you mean the last little bit when there are small pieces that don't support
open flames? We wil have to define 'coals'.

>People will leach your ideas all day long but when it comes to
>getting funded especialy out of the states for work in development,
> they disappear like the wind.

I have decided years ago that I am not a one-hit wonder and can afford to
share lots of information. I am not directly in the 'development set' which
I think applies to almost everyone on this list. If I get ripped off
idea-wise it doesn't take away my income. In the end having producting
capacity with well performing staff is going to get more stoves out there
than the best info or even design. After all, there are a lot of dreadful
stoves on the market already! That alone should show me that having a
production facility is more important than having a good product!

>I agree with you fully just go out and do it then everybody will come
>in to follow and perhaps lend real support .

A friend of mine makes the best brick and block making equipment on the
continent. He assures me that whatever I make, if it is good, people will
copy it no matter what I do to protect it. One protection is to know what
you are doing and make things people want to buy. Most copy artists are
trying to get in on the market by reducing cost or quality. Here, people
have a pretty good eye for quality and are very brand loyal so branding is
important.

We made, last week, a large hammer mill for maize, based on a German engine
and a local (RSA) mill. It is the most famous brand in the market. It is
in many ways a dreadful product. Surprisingly bad design but heavy and
robust. Runs far too fast and make inordinate demands on the drive train.
The conversation in thes hop was, "We can do far better than this..."
Crikey! We can't do everything! Where do we start?

>If I hadn't been doing this for the past 34 years with some success and
real
>encouragement in the actual development environment with those who really
>need the assistance, I would have given up a long time ago.

Thanks for the moral support. It feels good.

Just so I don't offend anyone accidentally, I was referring in a post a
little while ago to people not using well known combustion principles. I
wasn't referring to people on this list at all. I think people here are
miles ahead of the 'market'. I was talking about the local stove industry
and the use of coal stoves.

On thing the Biomass Energy Team supported (but never financed) was a
retro-fit unit for placing into a coal stove so that it would burn wood
efficiently. My idea and I am sure it would work. That is a real need here
to get people to stop wasting wood with their R2500 ($300) coal stoves.

Yay! Montoya! See you at Indianapolis!
Regards
Crispin

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sun Sep 16 11:31:22 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Ron's further questions
Message-ID: <006d01c13e5f$6db24760$72e80fc4@home>

Dear Ron

Further questions:

>(RWL): I also looked again at your first introductory message and saw
>that you were very active in environmental and renewable energy matters
>in South Africa.

This is be default, as many good things happen in life. I got roped in
because there are so few manufacturers willing to make small technologies.
If you saw the modest factory you would not be very impressed. We mostly
look smart because of Quatro Pro 8!

>Could you clarify how you or others are getting ready for "Rio+10"?

So far it is a limited involvement. It seems so far away. Perhaps Paul is
going to stimulate something. I want to get involved in the the NGO things
here first. There is a LOT going on actually in this neck of the woods.

>(RWL): I am sure I speak for others that we all hope for your future
>success. Perhaps by having this dialogue, some list member will be able
>to offer leads for the finances or commercial orders that you need...

There is a lot to be done in the SADC region. I am not sure how far our
influence will extend. Fuel and stoves are major issues here. The coal
burning is a terrible menace.

>(RWL): 1. Can you give us this modelling magazine citation.

The mag is Model Engineer which is a semi-weekly. There is an article in it
on combustion for the layman. I was reading that.

>I agree that the "efficiency test events" are needed - and I believe we
>will see that happen through the Shell Foundation activities.

We need to be able to do a test that does not require getting to any certain
place. I am weary of centralized approval agencies. In the long run they
hold up development. The AFRIDEV water pump is an example. Very widely
used but not a particularly good device and it requires Swiss approval for
technical mods. We don't want to get into that state: promote only stoves
that are 'approved'. There is a lot of room for innovation still.

>There are still major problems in defining a standard test.

Can we agree on a standard mass of fuel? A standard pot and water content,
followed by a plot of the temp rise in the pot? We use a 13 pound cast iron
pot with 3 litres of water in it! With wood we can get a boil in 10-12
minutes on the single stove.

>I don't llike the way they handled the value of left-over charcoal...

I like the test showing the total stove mass with pot on a scale so we can
see the fuel burning. Great idea - wish I have a scale for 30Kg +-0.001. A
neighbour of ours has one for weighing out nylon making ingredients.

>I am not sure about your concern about not using "known
>combustion methods".

See above.

>..."holey" briquettes...Are you aware of any published material on this
>subject?

Nope.

>...Besides the inefficiencies of incomplete combustion - the uncombusted
>gases are very serious contributors to global climate change - much
>worse than CO2.

People here cook with open fires indoors in a partially ventilated room,
typically a round hut. We are very interested in getting the pollutants
down to nearly zero and that can, in my experience, only be achieved by
concentrating on getting the smoke combusted properly. The cooking hut is
not going away soon and neither is the wood fire.

>...these PICs have big health impacts.

There is that 'PIC' again. Not sure what that is. Products of Incomplete
Combustion?

>(RWL): I believe the TsoTso has taken good steps to provide for
>good amounts of secondary air.

It must be limited. It is not a free-for-all or it cools the primary smoke.
I see it working when it is 200 to 320 degrees, closer to 300 being the
best.

>Are you are of any careful measurements on the output gases?

We can only go by emission appearance. We can only measure temperature
accurately with a pyrometer.

What do you accept as the dry weight heat content of different types of
wood? Have you got a list? We are trying to use oak sawdust but the first
batch came with beaverboard sawdust (with resins) mixed in it and it would
only burn with a long chimney (i.e. forced air). I know that we can get
poplar sawdust but in the end a great deal will be pine. I am calculating
that to be about 13MJ/Kg.

Thanks
Crispin

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Sun Sep 16 12:08:34 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Charcoal Making Stoves, Dan's improvments
Message-ID: <87.100a8bfd.28d6278a@aol.com>

Tom, MY CONTRIBUTION
Is there any way to simply make the burner collapse into a shorter tube
allowing the pot to become closer to the charcoal? If your burner tube were
designed slightly larger (or smaller) than the fuel canister, could it
possibly lower around the outside(or inside) of it? This could be done in
steps allowing the optimum spacing between the pot and the fuel for maximum
heat transfer. The insulation should be only around the fuel section itself.
If the burner collapsed inside, it could "ride down" the shrinking surface of
the fuel itself into the insulated section.
As far as the air supply. Take a large aluminum conduit set vertical, as
a base for the stove. Set the configuration such that the fuel canister sets
inside the top of the conduit.(with some room for air passage?) As it heats
the top of the tube, the heat would quickly conduct down the aluminum.
Direct the air flow for the entire stove up the inside length this tube to
preheat, and soon you would have convection forced draft FROM THE BOTTOM. You
may need to open up the air a little to account for thermal expansion. This
tube should be well insulated on the outside, it being aluminum.
To improve one more step, make this tube into an oven by putting a door
on it. The fuel for the next batch could be kiln dried in the bottom of this
oven if damp. This would not be unnecessarily complicated, and would use
readily available conduit. The objectives of: preheating all combustion air,
drying fuel, improving air draft flow, and optimizing heat from burning
charcoal to the pot, would all be accomplished this way. The hottest
combustion air would be produced at the end of the burning cycle when the
charcoal was burning, and it was needed to produce hot CO. The moisture from
the drying fuel may provide some steam reforming in the hottest stages of
combustion, when excess heat and carbon is avalible, regulating the thermal
curve.
Let me know what happens. I have no interest in these particular designs,
but I can see where billions of people do. How do I become a member of the
BEF?
YOUR INSPIRATION
Personally, I am working on a gravity flow feed system that feeds a
gasifier/burner from the bottom up, sideways. The fuel would feed into a v
channel at an angle with the ash coming off the top of the angled pile of
burning fuel, and the air entering from the bottom of the v. This was
inspired with your mention of augering fuel in from the bottom.
I have spent many years studying and climbing talus slopes. Having run
my landscape business out of a dump, and piling up large amounts of dirt,
mulch, and other debris. I find the mechanics of accumulating piles of
material very complex. I also like the way my cross-flow stove burns on a
slope when burning chips. The ash just peals away with gravity and exposes
the fresh hot fuel. The missing link was the feeding of air from the bottom
of the pile, which is of course the secret to your Biomass Energy Foundation
designs. Info trade?
Your friend,
Daniel Dimiduk
Shangri-La Research and Development Co.
Dayton,
Ohio.
Invention Capitol of the world, and
Cross roads of America,
long before
Birthplace of Aviation

P.S. Lets rebuild those WTC towers taller with Iron -steel laminate beams for
a core, and aerogels for walls. A fireman told me that they use Iron for
their practice towers. We know why Iron is used for stove grates. Pass this
on to whom it may concern.

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From kjellstromt at yahoo.com Sun Sep 16 17:57:02 2001
From: kjellstromt at yahoo.com (tord kjellstrom)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:04 2004
Subject: Please unsubscribe me from this list
In-Reply-To: <012a01c13ebb$da199280$4c69e1cf@computer>
Message-ID: <20010916215258.85831.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear Ron and the people running the Stoves email list.

I am not really a stoves person in the way this email
discussion is developing. I can contribute little
except when specific matters of the health effects of
indoor cold/damp conditions or the effects of indoor
and outdoor smoke are assessed.

Please unsubscribe me immediately, as these emails
only clog up my address. Your work is extremely
important, and if the Stoves network gets involved in
health assessments, I would be happy to help.

Best regards

Tord Kjellstrom

--- Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net> wrote:
> Stovers:
>
> This message is to add to today's message fom
> Tom Reed responding to Paul Anderson's off-line
> paragraph which read:
>
> >What changes would you make to your IDD stove
> (version without motorized blower)? Ed and I (with
> help from others, >possibly my contacts in
> Mozambique and Swaziland) could try to build it.
> But I hardly know where to start without
> >substantial guidance from you. I do not see it
> much as a money/funding problem, at least not for
> the simple materials.
>
>
> Paul (and others):
>
> Glad to receive your offer to do more
> development. I would start your research by
> returning to the days just before there was a
> "stoves" list - when the dialog on the IDD or
> charcoal-making stove was first taking place on the
> list "bioenergy".
>
> That dialog started on December 21, 1995 with a
> stoves question coming in from a Swedish researcher
> Sven-Erik Tiberg
>
http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/199512/msg00064.html
> Tom Miles and I responded on the same day. The
> dialog got suficiently complex that Tom Miles soon
> split us off into a separate "stoves" list. You
> will find in early January 1996 some more detailed
> plans and descriptions from myself. The combustion
> chamber height works out well with coffee can
> dimension ratios (a height somewhat larger than the
> diameter.). (Pizza parlors throw away an amazing
> number of large tomato paste cans every day.)
>
> An early message was from Mark Bryden at Iowa
> State - calling for competitions. I still know of
> only one student "competition" - at the Colorado
> School of Mines, under Professor Bob Knecht. Lots
> of innovative approaches will come out if you can
> get your Illinois students involved in a classroom
> activity. Mark is also a modeler - and I am still
> not aware of any useful modeling work on these
> stoves (and I think this is the easiest stove to
> model and I have recently found a fortran finite
> difference model that is available to anyone wanting
> to take up this challenge).
>
> There were many useful innovations thrown in
> early - all of which need further development. The
> ones I liked best were from Tom Duke, a farmer
> relatively near you in Iowa who reported on his
> having 1) successfully tried the approach using only
> two holes in the ground and 2).a charcoal-making
> space heater from a tall piece of stove pipe. Elsen
> Karstad went larger - using needs in Kenya as his
> guide. Alex English added aspirators and went
> larger also - even up to the scale of bales of hay.
> Richard Boyt did beautiful work with tin snips -
> adding multiple layers of metal to get better
> efficiency. Richard is a former professor of
> Ceramics at Crowder College in Kansas and maybe has
> done some work with ceramics forms. There were
> people saying charcoal-making couldn't possibly work
> - and we need to understand why they were saying so.
> I am unfortunately leaving out some others - but I
> think if you review that early history you will find
> some R&D leads that suggest themselves. The
> important point is that there are many variations
> that need to be studied to best meet local needs.
> Stove mechanical stability is a problem worth
> working on for child-safety reasons. We need a way
> to economicall get some light output from these
> stoves (I have some high temperature glss that may
> be the way).
>
> In many places, I think the best material will be
> pottery-based - as it is refractory and cheap. I
> have tried some and they work - but certainly not
> yet optimized. Even mild winds are disastrous - so
> you must shield the stove if to be used outside -
> not so easy with ceramics alone. Also we have not
> yet heard enough about using waste heat for heating
> the secondary air (may not be useful for he primary
> air since so little is needed). The electrically
> powered ZZstoves do this very well - and I wonder
> what their emissions properties are??
>
> The major unsolved problem I see is the exact
> design for optimizing convective heat transfer to
> the cook pot. This list has used a sleeve distance
> of 5-10 mm, but I think we need a lot more work that
> is dependent on the "sleeve" height. Sam Baldwin's
> VITA report has some theory - but I am not aware of
> any experimental proof of his results. There has
> been a lot of discussion of samovars on our list as
> a way to get better heat transfer for at least the
> boiling water application. I am not aware of any
> dedicated research with that design (which might
> work out very well with "holey" briquettes)
>
> I am aware of absolutely no work that attempts
> to optimize the early pyrolysis phase of "holey"
> briquettes. I now think our early work on
> charcoal-making stoves put too much emphasis on
> controlling radial air flow around the fuel.
> Someone reported on using a very holey "lower
> coffee can" - and that is behind my recent questions
> to Crispin about making wire baskets. The
> phenomenon of the "holey" briquet only pyrolyzing
> from the inside is indicative of this nice feature
> of radiative energy capture.
>
> Richard Stanley said today that he has given up
> on modifying a pyrolyis stove to better burn the
> charcoal produced. See my challenge today to
> stovers to try to solve that problem - if one
> chooses not to save the charcoal (which I like to
> save primarily because it can help pay for higher
> quality stoves).
>
> Should you think the charcoal is important (as I
> do) - there is plenty of room for innovative
> thinking on how to quench the pyrolysis process best
> (removing a "basket", spreading, water, closing vs
> tipping the primary can, a closed storage can, etc?)
>
> I strongly agree with Tom that we need to find
> ways to better mix the secondary air and pyrolysis
> gases under natural convection conditions. I have
> unsuccessfully tried a few geometries to achieve
> mixing before ignition. Messages from Alex English
> may provide some leads. (Alex? Tom?)
>
> There is another set of ideas that we could
> follow relative to blowers. Your University staff
> that is skilled in electronics can perhaps find ways
> to get low cost variability - and couple with PV
> cells or thermoelectrics (or several other strictly
> mechanical approaches mentioned last April by Andrew
> Heggie). The issues of blowers and charcoal-making
> should be kept separate - one can possibly do a
> better job at charcoal-making with blowers. I think
> you have concluded that natural convection is more
> appropriate in remote areas and you may be right.
> But this needs more research.
>
> I think there may be a great role for R&D on
> catalytic materials to insert in the secondary
> combustion region that could lead either to better
> flame holding characteristics - or to cleaner
> combustion. We need experts in catalysis for all
> stoves, probably.
>
> Another wonderful topic is to look more
> carefully at the emissions from the
> "charcoal-making" stove (and compare to other
> stoves). I believe it to be the cleanest stove
> around but this is not yet proven. Perhaps your
> University Chemists or Chemical Engineers will find
> this challenging. We need better meters.
>
> Returning to your basic question - the ideas are
> simple: get enough combustion volume height to get
> a good draft, separate the primary (which needs to
> be able to be closed tightly) and secondary air
> (need research on whether there may be some value in
> controlling the secondary air - which so far has
> worked out well to only control the primary air),
> pack the (as_dry_as_possible) fuel tightly, and top
> light (need some more R&D to get best means of
> lighting - I use large Pine needles).
>
> I now think I have made too long a list of R&D
> areas - like Tom, I think it will be best to just
> try a few tests. If there are any problems, there
> will be many on the list able to suggest reasons and
> solutions. Best of luck.
>
> Ron
>

=====

Tord Kjellstrom
Professor of Environmental Health
Department of Community Health
The University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand, Fax: +64-9-3737624

__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From tombreed at home.com Sun Sep 16 20:30:05 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Heat values...
In-Reply-To: <006d01c13e5f$6db24760$72e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <005001c13f0e$094cba80$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

 

Dear Crispin and all:

I have been reading and viewing the Crispin stoves and am very
impressed. 

One question:

How much charcoal is typically left at the end of the
burn?

One answer:

Most biomass has a heating value of 18 MJ/kg +/- 1 MJ/kg (10%
moisture) on a dry ash free basis (DAF).   (see our "Thermal Data for
Natural and Synthetic Fuels", Gaur, Reed, M. Dekker, 1998).  Of course
there are exceptions - those materials that have high oil or hydrocarbon content
(nuts, manure will be high).  

However, the "smoke burning stove" initially burns only the
volatiles on the first pass and leaves charcoal (24 MJ/kg) behind. 
Assuming 20% charcoal yield, the volatiles only have a fuel value of 16.5
MJ/kg.  So, the question of charcoal production is important.  (Pure
carbon has a heating value of 33.5 MJ/kg.  Our charcoals are typically 20%
volatiles still, so hence the lower HHV). 




Dr. Thomas
Reed  The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO
80401303 278 0558; <FONT
size=2>tombreed@home.com; <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin" <<A
href="mailto:crispin@newdawn.sz">crispin@newdawn.sz<FONT
size=2>>
To: "Stoves" <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org<FONT
size=2>>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:24 PM
Subject: Ron's further questions
> Dear Ron> >
Further questions:> > >(RWL):  I also looked again at your
first introductory message and saw> >that you were very active in
environmental and renewable energy matters> >in South Africa.>
> This is be default, as many good things happen in life.  I got
roped in> because there are so few manufacturers willing to make small
technologies.> If you saw the modest factory you would not be very
impressed.  We mostly> look smart because of Quatro Pro 8!>
> >Could you clarify how you or others are getting ready for
"Rio+10"?> > So far it is a limited involvement.  It seems so
far away.  Perhaps Paul is> going to stimulate something.  I
want to get involved in the the NGO things> here first.  There is a
LOT going on actually in this neck of the woods.> >
>(RWL):  I am sure I speak for others that we all hope for your
future> >success.  Perhaps by having this dialogue, some list
member will be able> >to offer leads for the finances or commercial
orders that you need...> > There is a lot to be done in the SADC
region.  I am not sure how far our> influence will extend. 
Fuel and stoves are major issues here.  The coal> burning is a
terrible menace.> > >(RWL):  1.  Can you give us this
modelling magazine citation.> > The mag is Model Engineer which is
a semi-weekly.  There is an article in it> on combustion for the
layman.  I was reading that.> > >I agree that the
"efficiency test events" are needed - and I believe we> >will see that
happen through the Shell Foundation activities.> > We need to be
able to do a test that does not require getting to any certain>
place.  I am weary of centralized approval agencies.  In the long run
they> hold up development.  The AFRIDEV water pump is an
example.  Very widely> used but not a particularly good device and
it requires Swiss approval for> technical mods.  We don't want to
get into that state: promote only stoves> that are 'approved'. 
There is a lot of room for innovation still.> > >There are
still major problems in defining a standard test.> > Can we agree
on a standard mass of fuel?  A standard pot and water content,>
followed by a plot of the temp rise in the pot?  We use a 13 pound cast
iron> pot with 3 litres of water in it!  With wood we can get a boil
in 10-12> minutes on the single stove.> > >I don't 
llike the way they handled the value of left-over charcoal...> > I
like the test showing the total stove mass with pot on a scale so we can>
see the fuel burning.  Great idea - wish I have a scale for 30Kg
+-0.001.  A> neighbour of ours has one for weighing out nylon making
ingredients.> > >I am not sure about your concern about not
using "known> >combustion methods".> > See
above.> > >..."holey" briquettes...Are you aware of any
published material on this> >subject?> > Nope.>
> >...Besides the inefficiencies of incomplete combustion - the
uncombusted> >gases are very serious contributors to global climate
change - much> >worse than CO2.> > People here cook with
open fires indoors in a partially ventilated room,> typically a round
hut.  We are very interested in getting the pollutants> down to
nearly zero and that can, in my experience, only be achieved by>
concentrating on getting the smoke combusted properly.  The cooking hut
is> not going away soon and neither is the wood fire.> >
>...these PICs have big health impacts.> > There is that 'PIC'
again.  Not sure what that is.  Products of Incomplete>
Combustion?> > >(RWL):  I believe the TsoTso has taken
good steps to provide for> >good amounts of secondary air.>
> It must be limited.  It is not a free-for-all or it cools the
primary smoke.> I see it working when it is 200 to 320 degrees, closer to
300 being the> best.> > >Are you are of any careful
measurements on the output gases?> > We can only go by emission
appearance.  We can only measure temperature> accurately with a
pyrometer.> > What do you accept as the dry weight heat content of
different types of> wood?  Have you got a list?  We are trying
to use oak sawdust but the first> batch came with beaverboard sawdust
(with resins) mixed in it and it would> only burn with a long chimney
(i.e. forced air).  I know that we can get> poplar sawdust but in
the end a great deal will be pine.  I am calculating> that to be
about 13MJ/Kg.> > Thanks> Crispin> > >
-> Stoves List Archives and Website:> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/<FONT
size=2>> <A
href="http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html<FONT
size=2>> > Stoves List Moderators:> Ron Larson, <A
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net"><FONT
size=2>ronallarson@qwest.net> Alex English,
<FONT
size=2>english@adan.kingston.net> Elsen L.
Karstad, <FONT
size=2>elk@wananchi.com <A
href="http://www.chardust.com">www.chardust.com<FONT
size=2>> > List-Post: <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"><FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves@crest.org>> List-Help:
<<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>>
List-Unsubscribe: <<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
List-Subscribe: <<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
-> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:> <A
href="http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/"><FONT
size=2>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/<FONT
size=2>> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml"><FONT
size=2>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml<FONT
size=2>> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES> <A
href="http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm<FONT
size=2>>

From VHarris001 at aol.com Mon Sep 17 04:47:15 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Needed research
Message-ID: <131.1aba83c.28d7119a@aol.com>

   I strongly agree with Tom that we need to find ways to better mix the secondary air and pyrolysis gases under natural convection conditions.   I have unsuccessfully tried a few geometries to achieve mixing before ignition. Messages from Alex English may provide some leads.  (Alex? Tom?)  

There is another set of ideas that we could follow relative to blowers.  Your University staff that is skilled in electronics can perhaps find ways to get low cost variability - and couple with PV cells or thermoelectrics (or several other strictly mechanical approaches mentioned last April by Andrew Heggie).  The issues of blowers and charcoal-making should be kept separate - one can possibly do a better job at charcoal-making with blowers.  I think you have concluded that natural convection is more appropriate in remote areas and you may be right.  But this needs more research.

Don't forget to add pulse combustion to the list of items needing research.  Although the operation of pulse combustors is not well understood - even by experts in the field - they do appear to have many benefits to offer the development of stoves.  They can provide vacuum to draw gas through a negative pressure gasifier stage, they can burn ash and tar laden woodgas, they generate copious heat, and they provide exhaust pressure which can be used both to increase heat transfer rates and pump exhaust out of a vent tube - eliminating the need for a natural draft chimney.

The down side is that they can be difficult to start, and they will require silencing that can not be disabled.  These problems may require a high-tech design program to achieve a solution - particularly if a valveless pulse combustor is to be developed.  But once optimized, a pulse combustor seems like it might be an ideal solution to the stoves problem - a combined blower and burner with no moving parts.

More information can be found by doing a search for "pulse combustion" on one of the search engines or at www.uspto.gov.  If I find more relavant information about pulse combustion and stoves, I'll post it here.  In the meantime, if any one else has more comments (and particularly helpful are considered criticisms) about them, please don't hesitate to share it here.

Vernon Harris

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Mon Sep 17 08:40:13 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Please unsubscribe me from this list
In-Reply-To: <20010916215258.85831.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000201c13f75$83676740$4c6ae1cf@computer>

Tord - I have made the change. When we get onto some topic that looks more
appropriate, I will send it on. If you find some stoves topic that looks
like it may be appropriate for us I hope you will let us know. I am
particularly interested now in metering for emissions.

I will try to push for the

> specific matters of the health effects of
> indoor cold/damp conditions or the effects of indoor
> and outdoor smoke are assessed.

Re this:

> if the Stoves network gets involved in
> health assessments, I would be happy to help.
>

- we certainly are not yet the place to look to on health assessments - but
maybe in a year or so, we will be able to say we are. It all depends on
whether the Shell Foundation uses people from this list.

I have had two off-list messages from Nikhil - but no direct response to
my last long set of questions to him.

Best of luck.

Ron

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Mon Sep 17 09:42:06 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: The shape of briquetts to come
Message-ID: <12.12888391.28d7569a@aol.com>

Dear stovers,
There has been a lot of discussion about holes in charcoal and other
biomass briquettes lately. One problem seems to revolve on the low tech
manufacturing processes used to produce these. The holes tend to hang up the
flow of production. I suggest that we look at a different approach using
what valuable knowledge has been gained here.
Let us look at the geometry of the outside shape of the briquettes with
relationship to how they settle in the stove. There seems to be an apparent
optimum relationship between the airspace's between, and the distance for the
gasses to travel from combustion air inlet to burner area. The other
relationship is the size of the briquette to the length of burn. We could
make a model of this without a computer. Any engineer on this list can play
with a drawing. Let us know the results.
Our goal would be to come up with a shape that is easily extruded or
pressed with current equipment. That briquette shape should settle into any
stove being used with the optimum airspace in between to simulate the effect
of the holes. I am not a geometry major, but I could see clover shapes, x
shapes, star shapes,dogbone shapes, and triangles, as a good place to start.
The turbulance of the gasses tumbling and swirling as they flow between
should theoreticly provide for even more complete combustion then the holes.
Thanks to all the good people who have spent a lot of time studying this
hole effect. Hope this helps.
Daniel Dimiduk

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Mon Sep 17 15:05:10 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Stove - IDD
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010917131405.00e2ed70@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,   The following will fill you in on a brief
side-discussion that I had with Tom Reed.  Tom gives some good info
that might stimulate others on the list.

Tom, and all,

Thanks for the informative message, that is below for all to read.

Ed, are you willing to help make this thing?

I am NOT against FC (forced convection with a blower or fan), nor am I
only favoring NC (natural convention).  I just want the force to be
more simple than an electrical blower fan with battery power.  Many
options if we could find 1 or two that work.

I am afraid that some people are confusing my enthusiasm (great) with my
skills and abilities and time (all are extremely limited).

I am hoping that our members and friends in Mozambique, India, and other
countries might take up the challenge to build and improve on the IDD
(inverted downdraft) gasifier with simplified supplemental secondary
air.  Especially in the universities in the developing countries,
these could be very useful topics for independent study or thesis work,
or even if qualified students were employed to make such things.

Paul

####################  Tom's message is below ###############
Dear Paul (and Bob?):   (Bob Weldon is Tom's
cousin and Paul's neighbor in Illinois.)

Great to have you "all fired up" for improved
stoves.  Too bad you don't live in Denver or me in Normal. 
What a team we'd make.

Yes I understand probably more principles of woodgas stove
than just about anyone on this planet.  But I do learn new things
every day.  I'd love to give a 1/2 hour lecture to you and
Bob.  I'd like to say "it's not rocket science", but hey,
we started and completed rocket science in 50 years and we are still only
30% into woodgas stove science.  So it should keep me busy the rest
of my life. 

Wish I could send you the natural convection stove I wrote
about with Ron - I'll look in garage, but not sure its there.  In
any case, that was a "work in progress".  So, best you
build that, then start improving from there. 

Your main effort initially needs to be to collect a few 1
lb, 2 lb and 3 lb coffee cans (the 2 lb style is harder to find). 
You could even buy your next year's supply of coffee, empty the cans and
freeze the coffee, but better to find them around.  Next you need to
buy a supply of "riser sleeves" that fit the cans.  (4
inch, 5 inch and 6 inch OD).  Riser sleeves are well known in the
metal casting business and unknown to the rest of the world.  The
high temperature variety easily withstands temperatures of 1500 C,
(molten steel).  They are easy to cut and form and only cost a few $
each.  I recommend looking in your yellow pages for a big foundry,
making friends with them and buying a few at a time. 

I said the natural convection (NC) stove described in the
paper with Ron Larson was a "work in progress".  (On my
website at
www.woodgas.com). 
I spent 12 years trying to build a natural convection stove to my
satisfaction.  That was my best effort at that time.  Then I
tried forced convection with a small blower and immediately went to
better performance and more flexibility in design.  However, I
believe that there are improvements to be made in the NC stove as
follows.  

The bottom section of the stove makes combusible gas very
well.  The problem is to mix that gas with combustion air using only
NC.  A very small amount of pressure from a fan or blower solves
that simply.  However, the upper section of the NC stove described
also solves it by providing chimney draft and there's the rub.  Each
foot of chimney filled with hot gas provides 0.01 inch of water pressure;
my blower provides 0.3 inch water pressure and is probably more than I
need.

The problem in the NC stove is that a chimney the same size
as the bottom section does not have enough hot gas to fill it.  You
could make a smaller diameter chimney  - say 2" on top of the
4" gasifier.  But a 2" flame is rather small for
cooking.  That is the reason for the "Gas Wick" shown in
the paper.  (A private joke, not a very good name).  It gives a
ring of flame, similar to that from a gas range and that's what people
are used to.  Maybe you can think of a better way of solving this
problem. 

Or maybe the chimney-stove arrangement is good enough in
places where cooking is more primative.

Ron Larson thinks producing charcoal is a major advantage of
the NC (and FC) stoves.  In some countries the charcoal would be a
desirable product, others it is a nuisance.  I am working on means
of burning all the fuel and not leaving charcoal now.  Also I am
working on improving the blower/fan system. 

But I hope you will want to repeat our NC stove and then
make a better one.  You may put our FC stoves out of business - I
hope. 

Yours for a better
world               
TOM REED
Dr. Thomas
Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558;
tombreed@home.com;
www.woodgas.com

########################

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State
University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice: 
309-438-7360;  FAX:  309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

 

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Mon Sep 17 16:43:24 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Stoves at JNB-02
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913173720.01a55100@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <004b01c13fb8$b913cee0$fcd51ac4@jmdavies>

Hi Ron & Crispin.

This is all very interesting, It Has been my weekend to work 12 hour shifts,
hence the delay in replying.
The opportunity was used to speak with Black colleagues in the work place
and some interesting answers resulted. The SASOL factory has drawn people
from far and wide, hence a really mixed bag of cultures and ethnic groups.
Among the "Black People" can be found representatives from most of the
Southern Africa region. From the illiterate to those with a high level of
education. It is mainly the illiterate, but not limited to them that live in
the informal settlements. ( commonly known a squatters camps )

When I asked further about what I call the BOLO. An argument ensued as to
it's name, with different people having a different pronunciation or name
for the same thing. Varied from Crispin's " Mbaula" to mbolo, ebolo, ebaula
etc. that of course according to my ear.

Another interesting fact from this group, was that the basic concept was
none other than a tin which could be prepared in different ways to produce
hot smokeless coals. Some use a short chimney which could be constructed in
a manner of ways, in order to help with the draft to promote ignition of the
fuel. Smoke prevention was not even considered as this part of the burn is
in the open air. Nothing scientific, purely "rule of thumb"

The holes in the perimeter of the tin are numerous and big enough to allow
"good burning" without allowing hot coals to fall out. No holes in the
bottom. From what I could gather about 1 to 1 1/4 ". covering about 20% of
the surface. The coal which is ungraded is broken down to a maximum size of
~1 1/2". The fire is prepared by a 3" layer of crumpled news paper
followed by a layer of kindling, upon which the coal and fines are placed
roughly about 1/2 the capacity of the tin, but varying according to the
final coke bed required. "The fines help to promote ignition of the coal"

Each house prepares a BOLO, which is placed in the centre opening between
the houses. They are lit during the late afternoon. The heat produced
during the burning in process radiates towards the surrounding houses being
absorbed by the mainly corrugated iron sides, giving some warmth. Those not
busy with other tasks gather around the fires for warmth forming a social
group, moving from BOLO to BOLO visiting the neighbours etc.

When the volatiles are burned off and the smoke stops, a hand full of
"mealie meal" ( corn meal ) is sprinkled over the coals." this flares up,
taking away the poisonous gasses from the fire ". ( IS THIS SUPERSTITION, OR
COULD THERE BE A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION ? )

The bolo is then carried into the house and put in a central point, where
heat is given off to the whole house.
Cooking may be done on this by resting a pot on an steel bar, iron pipe etc,
inserted through the holes, or may be done on a separate, cheap stove,
commercially or informally manufactured, which produces a continuous smoke
plume from the chimney.

The BOLO may be removed from the house at bed time or may be left to burn
out slowly gaining the most heat. Ventilation is by way of having a window
slightly open, and/ or by voids in the joints of the panels of the home. The
amount required is gauged by the effect of the gasses on the people. It was
stated that some people mis judged this and never woke up again.

Of course some do have a chimney above the BOLO, and some cannot afford one
or believe that this allows too much loss of heat. The variation of
implementation and safety precautions appears to be in direct proportion to
the level of education, with the ignorant refusing to heed the advice of the
educated.

For those of us, with a western standard of housing, education, and
life-style. It is hard to believe that such squalor exists. Well is does,
within 10 miles from my comfortable home. Much work needs to be done! The
government is trying to move these people into formal housing, but the
informal settlements grow faster than what the housing projects can be
built. Influx from the country areas, people fleeing the political unrest in
neighbouring countries, etc etc.

I will be following up on a lead, that coal fines, un usable by SASOL ,
might be available. This depending on the availability, could be the
building block, to produce Chinese type , coal briquettes, and /or
improvement of the BOLO.

SASOL and a local GOLD MINING GROUP, has sponsored a training centre in the
area. This might provide a meeting place, where a self help group could be
convened. This could lead to education, and possibly a beginning of a
cottage industry, which could create employment, and lead to a heather
lifestyle of the poorest people in this area.

Matthew 9 vs. 37 . The harvest is large, but there are few workers to
gather it in, ( Good News Bible )

I cannot even think of making a profit from the poor, but if I can help in
some way to make their lives more bearable, I will do so. My apologies to
any commercial interests that may loose some profit.

Any progress should include current , informal business people, i.e. the
coal seller, the stove maker etc.etc.

Regarding the analogue of a cooking stove to a steam locomotive, I will
reply at my next posting.

Thank you for listening,
John Davies,
Secunda,
South Africa.

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Tue Sep 18 09:14:36 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Stoves at JNB-02
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913173720.01a55100@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <005401c14043$768ca5c0$c26ae1cf@computer>

John: Thanks for your message. See some thoughts/questions below: Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: John Davies <jmdavies@xsinet.co.za>
To: stove list <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Stoves at JNB-02

> Hi Ron & Crispin.
>
<snip>
>
> Another interesting fact from this group, was that the basic concept was
> none other than a tin which could be prepared in different ways to produce
> hot smokeless coals. Some use a short chimney which could be constructed
in
> a manner of ways, in order to help with the draft to promote ignition of
the
> fuel. Smoke prevention was not even considered as this part of the burn is
> in the open air. Nothing scientific, purely "rule of thumb".

RWL: My hope is that what we have been calling a charcoal-making stove can
possibly be used with coal rather than wood to produce a "coke-making" stove
(CMS). I am not aware of any tests with coal anywhere - but think it is
worth the effort in that direction. Basically, the early smoky phase would
be replaced by pyrolysis and combustion of the smoke. The issues to
experiment on start with learning more about the type of coal that is
available - name (anthracite, etc - I am looking I guess for a measure of
softness - more like peat or more like rocks?) , variability in size of lump
(average is 1.5"?), etc. Do users ever break it up further themselves? (I
assume that someone thinks that it is now a good size lump.) Your
description of a "short chimney" says that higher airflows are needed during
startup. They certainly are needed for a CMS. .

>
> The holes in the perimeter of the tin are numerous and big enough to allow
> "good burning" without allowing hot coals to fall out. No holes in the
> bottom. From what I could gather about 1 to 1 1/4 ". covering about 20% of
> the surface. The coal which is ungraded is broken down to a maximum size
of
> ~1 1/2". The fire is prepared by a 3" layer of crumpled news paper
> followed by a layer of kindling, upon which the coal and fines are placed
> roughly about 1/2 the capacity of the tin, but varying according to the
> final coke bed required. "The fines help to promote ignition of the coal"

(RWL): I guess that 1.5 " coal is OK. You can't have lots of smaller
stuff in between or the air flow will be too restricted. The lighting will
have to be on top, not the bottom. My experience is that paper will leave
behind too much residue and will block the needed air flow. You need
something finer as tinder. The coal should be very dry. The first time, I
would try spreading a little vaseline right on the uppermost surface of the
top layer of coal lumps. Later you can find something cheaper as a starter

In a recent message to Paul Anderson, I gave a description of the key
parts of a CMS. What has to be done for the Bolo - is put many fewer holes
(3?) at the bottom for the primary air. (these can be plugged to control the
thermal output) Then a single row of holes (if you are startng with sheet
metal) just above the layers of coal. And plenty of pipe above the
secondary air holes (or ring). I would start with stwo maller cans - maybe
15-20 cm across and 20-25 cm high - with primary air holes only at the
bottom of the fuel container. A gap of 3-5 mm before your upper "small
chimney" should provide plenty enough secondary air. All of these steps
work well with sticks. The issue is over how to vary this with coal
replacing wood. I am aware of noone who can tell us - but the tests
shouldn't take long. Main caution -this WILL NOT work with bottom lighting.
>
> Each house prepares a BOLO, which is placed in the centre opening between
> the houses. They are lit during the late afternoon. The heat produced
> during the burning in process radiates towards the surrounding houses
being
> absorbed by the mainly corrugated iron sides, giving some warmth. Those
not
> busy with other tasks gather around the fires for warmth forming a social
> group, moving from BOLO to BOLO visiting the neighbours etc.
>
This social custom can continue - but need not. Could be shorter. My
hope would be that right from the start, the combustion of the "smoke" would
be sufficiently clean that the unit could be placed indoors. I believe you
will find that there was an enormous amount of energy in the early escaping
smoke. When the pyrolysis has gone from top to bottom (maybe an hour
later), it will really start smoking as you now don't have enough air. You
either quench (and use the newly made "coke" in another geometry) or have to
remove all of the lower primary air plugs and get a lot more air in through
the bottom.

> When the volatiles are burned off and the smoke stops, a hand full of
> "mealie meal" ( corn meal ) is sprinkled over the coals." this flares up,
> taking away the poisonous gasses from the fire ". ( IS THIS SUPERSTITION,
OR
> COULD THERE BE A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION ? )
>
(RWL): I can think of no scientific explanation. But no one is getting
hurt by this explanation either. The smoking stopped when the coal had been
turned (with huge inefficiencies) into coke. Better to cook and eat the
mealy meal.

> The bolo is then carried into the house and put in a central point, where
> heat is given off to the whole house.
> Cooking may be done on this by resting a pot on an steel bar, iron pipe
etc,
> inserted through the holes, or may be done on a separate, cheap stove,
> commercially or informally manufactured, which produces a continuous smoke
> plume from the chimney.
>

Something like this can still be done - but I would shake the (now red
hot) coke out from the CMS and put it into something more like a "jiko".
The cooking can be directly on the coke, I guess.

> The BOLO may be removed from the house at bed time or may be left to burn
> out slowly gaining the most heat. Ventilation is by way of having a window
> slightly open, and/ or by voids in the joints of the panels of the home.
The
> amount required is gauged by the effect of the gasses on the people. It
was
> stated that some people mis judged this and never woke up again.

Death must have been caused by carbon monoxide - odorless. I would
still worry about this. My hope is that the jiko design makes this less
likely.

The other alternative is to look into making very flimsy vent hoods out
of stiff wire and a foil.

>
> Of course some do have a chimney above the BOLO, and some cannot afford
one
> or believe that this allows too much loss of heat. The variation of
> implementation and safety precautions appears to be in direct proportion
to
> the level of education, with the ignorant refusing to heed the advice of
the
> educated.
>
The vent hood should not increase heat loss - maybe even improve it by
radiation. ITDG has been favoring vents over chimenys, I believe.

<snip>

> Regarding the analogue of a cooking stove to a steam locomotive, I will
> reply at my next posting.
>
(RWL): I wish we could report on past experiments with "Coke-Making" -
we are not the right list (being mostly interested in improving wood use) .
However, I know there are a few people on the list who currently work at
laboratories specializing in coal - and there are some who know how to find
the literature on the former common practice of making "Town gas" from coal
(We are describing here something close to that but at the household scale.)
. I hope some of those can speak up on the differences between wood and
coal that would or would not lend hope for accomplishing the big
improvements that I think may be possible.

> Thank you for listening,
> John Davies,
> Secunda,
> South Africa.
>

John - Thank you for the more complete report. Your description changes
some erroneous views that I had held about these coal stoves that you and
Crispin have been describing. You are describing a very poor method of
using coal, I am pretty sure. It is like using charcoal after having put
the usual "mound" (non flaring) charcoal maker as close to your house as you
can - something I have never heard of any charcoal maker or user ever doing.
But you still have some interesting days of research ahead of you should you
try to duplicate with coal what some of have been doing with wood.

Late thought - grading the coal will probably be useful. Smaller lumps
go to smaller stoves, etc. Fines can go to making briquettes. I would try
for at least 10-15 lumps in a diameter (based on my experience with wood).
Having only a few lumps in a diameter will not give enough surface area and
radiant recapture. This is a lot like the question of the right hole
diameter in a "holey" briquette. If you are not getting good air flow, try
reducing the height of the coal layers and try adding extra height to the
upper burner/chimney - to get more draft. When the flame extinguishes for
any reason (too lttle primary air, a puff of wind, etc), and your pyrolysis
front still has not reached the bottom, the smoke in the upper system should
still be ready for easy re-lighting. At first be sure you have plenty of
matches. As you becme more skilled, you should eventually only need a
single match.

Good luck. (later message coming to Crispin - but assume all the above
applies to his research as well)

Ron

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rifa at advertisnet.com Tue Sep 18 10:02:19 2001
From: rifa at advertisnet.com (Richard & Faye)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Hay for fuel
Message-ID: <001401c14049$a1248540$70abb0d8@richard>

I have several greenhouses that I am thinking of heating with old round hay
bales. Moldy and not usable for the cattle. I would like to make this a
hot water system. Does anyone know were I can get information about a
product like this?

Richard Salmons

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From shaase at mcneiltech.com Tue Sep 18 13:13:04 2001
From: shaase at mcneiltech.com (Scott Haase)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Hay for fuel
In-Reply-To: <001401c14049$a1248540$70abb0d8@richard>
Message-ID: <HDECLBADMGOMOAOECEJAEEIBCAAA.shaase@mcneiltech.com>

This is not really my area of interest or expertise, but I am familiar with
one system that the Dansih have used in Europe. You might try contacting:

The Danish Agricultuiral Advisory Centre
Mr. Henning Foged
email: hlf@lr.dk

I believe they have sponsored or have been involved with some projects to
install straw-fired boiler systems in Europe. Also, I beleive the specific
system that I am familiar with is manufactured by Passat Energi A/S. The
contact name there is Mr. Johannes Enevoldsen, email: passat@passat.dk

There may be similar systems or companies in the US (if that is where you
are) but I am not aware of any off the top of my head. You might try
contacting people at the Department of Energy, Office of Power Technologies,
or USDA.

Good luck,

Scott Haase

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard & Faye [mailto:rifa@advertisnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:56 AM
To: stoves@crest.org
Subject: Hay for fuel

I have several greenhouses that I am thinking of heating with old round hay
bales. Moldy and not usable for the cattle. I would like to make this a
hot water system. Does anyone know were I can get information about a
product like this?

Richard Salmons

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Sep 18 13:14:40 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Stoves-Archives Project
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010918121254.00e30920@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

Earlier I proposed that our recorded knowledge (the Stoves archives) be
examined and indexed (into a database? probably).

I have received an offer to assist (below) and I am proceeding to accept
and make some specifications (far below).  Please read and consider
how YOU could assist.

Paul   

(please continue reading)

####################

Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 07:07:31 +0530
From: Priyadarshini Karve <karve@wmi.co.in>
Subject: Proposal: stoves database
To: psanders@ilstu.edu
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1

Paul,
Being a full-time teacher I can find a student to do
this for you, here in India. In fact, I already have a research student
working in the University of Pune, who is looking for a part-time
employment. He has an easy access to the internet. I can supervise his
work - in any case, I am also helping him in his Ph.D. research, so this
will not be too much of an additional work. If I send the word around,
even other candidates may come forward for these (or similar) tasks.

    I think a student in India would be happy to get a
dollar per hr or something of that order (approximately 10 hrs per week
to be spend on this task).
Regards,
Priyadarshini Karve

Dr. Priyadarshini Karve
Lecturer in Physics, Sinhgad College of Engineering, Pune, India.
Member, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute, Pune, India.
Founder Member, Sandarbh (an organisation devoted to science and
education), Pune, India.

Address for correspondence: 6, Koyna Apartments, S.No.133,
Kothrud, Pune 411 029, India
Phone: 91-020-5442217/5423258
E-mail: karve@wmi.co.in / adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in

###############  end of his message, and continuation of
Paul’s message #########

Priyadarshini,     (Are you the
person known as AD Karve, as in your second e-mail address above?  I
want to make sure that I am addressing you correctly.)

Hello,

I first want to accept your offer of assistance.  As a MINIMUM I
pledge US$250 to this project.  At 10 hours per week and $1.00 per
hour, that is almost 6 months of work.  Here are several
considerations for which we need some discussion and agreement.

1.  Are you a Rotarian?  (Do you have contact or can you
establish contact with Rotarians in Pune?)   (By the way, are
others on the Stoves listserve Rotarians besides Crispin and me?) 

If we can establish a Rotarian connection we have an easier means of
sending the funding and even for increasing the amounts that could be
collected for needed work.  Also, via Rotary or some other means,
the money provided for the work could be legally tax-deductible donations
for those who pay US American income tax, and perhaps for those in other
countries.

2.  Prof. Karve will be the supervisor of the person(s) doing the
work.

3.  The desired end results should be considered now at the
beginning, and I hope that Ron and others with long understanding of the
Stoves listserve archives will give guidance.

4.  I suggest that a trial run be conducted for finding and sharing
the available archived information about one or two significant topics,
such as:

        A. 
ACTUAL stove designs, including specifications for construction.

        B. 
QUANTITATIVE data about stove performances, including specifications of
the nature of the "test" conducted.

        C. 
The issue of biomass briquettes with HOLES, either by manufacture or by
"configuration" of fuel-pieces to product hole effects.

        D. 
??????

5.  Note that I have NOT named "gasification" because
there is a separate listserve for that and because I am hoping that Tom
Reed (moderator of the gasification list serve) might organize to have an
ADDITIONAL student worker tackle the organization of that topic, of which
one topic would be "gasification for residential stoves /
ovens".

6.  I, too, am a university professor and I frequently deal with
students who do projects for course credit or for hourly pay. 
Therefore I appreciate what must be done behind the scenes in India to
make this project work.  Continuity of the worker(s) and attaining a
final USABLE product are not small tasks.

7.  In order to NOT clutter the Stoves listserve with messages, I
propose we set up the following structure:

        A. 
Coordination committee:  Karve, Anderson, Larsen, (and more who want
to share in such discussions "off-list")   (Speak up
if you want to participate.)

        B. 
Periodic reports of progress to be posted to the entire Stoves listserve,
at least twice per month.

        C. 
IF anyone else is willing to make a financial contribution, please
contact me directly and I will report in summary form to the coordination
committee and then to the Stoves listserve as appropriate.

8.  I like action, but can be patient as needed.  In this case,
I think we should have substantial progress by early December, perhaps
with a small team of student-workers attacking the problem vigorously
once we have defined our approach.  If we feel that the end result
is of value, then needing a few hundred dollars should not stand in our
way.  If contributors eventually can say that they helped finance
the post-graduate education of a fine person in India, that alone is part
of the motivation to do things now and not wait for “approvals” and major
funding and miscellaneous delays.  Perhaps qualified supervisors in
other developing countries can make a case to involve their students in
appropriate projects.

Thanks for listening.

Paul      (the map guy)
.

 

 

 

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State
University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice: 
309-438-7360;  FAX:  309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

 

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Tue Sep 18 13:28:54 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Stoves at JNB-02- Locomotive links.
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913173720.01a55100@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <002c01c14066$8ab2cca0$357c27c4@jmdavies>

To Ron and Stovers.

This mail attempts to answer Ron's questions about my journey into
combustion, and hopes for the future.

JD
> > My main interest is the gas producer combustion furnace as applied to a
> > miniature steam locomotive. Coal burning is the current fuel under
> > investigation and testing in miniature locomotives, mimicking the full
>> scale gas producer furnace.

> > This appears far removed from "stoves" , but the link to be investigated
> is
> > the clean burning of low grade bituminous coal. The locomotive furnace
is
> of
> > similar size to a small stove, although it uses forced draft.
> >

RL
> When talking about forced draft - are you referring to all locomotives
> or just the large ones? How large is yours?

JD.
All locomotives. "Lady carol" has a grate area of 42 sq. in, a weight of
400 Lbs, 4 ft. long and runs on a 5" track. It will pull a 4 ton train on
the level, The proposed "Steam Queen" will be built specifically with a
gasifier firebed, this one will have a grate of 70 sq. in. for coal, which
can be enlarged to double this size for bio-mass. This will use a 7 1/4"
track. with a weight of ~ 800 Lbs.

JD
> > I feel that the locomotive combustion system could be adapted, to the
> BOLO.
> > but still have to do experimenting in this field. Success would allow
> > introducing an improvement to a familiar method and system, and might
meet
> > the least resistance to change.

RL
> Is the coal in lump form Is the locomotive system apt to better
because of the
> forced air? Can you give us more of an idea how much cleaner and more on
> what you woiuld do differently.

JD.
Lump form is used in the locomotive, with the fire bed depth at 11 times the
coal diameter. The forced draft is jetted across the bed surface, giving
turbulent, good mixing. and a clean flame immediately above the firebed.
Both primary and secondary air are forced by way of applying an ejector in
the chimney. Lady carol runs at about 1" water gauge vacuum above the
firebed. This increases with size and bed depth up to about 8" on a full
size locomotive.

Due to the forced draft the primary air tends to burn to CO2, which is then
reduced to CO in the layers above.

Without forced draft, the air flow would be more gentle. I imagine that the
initial burn would tend more towards CO, allowing a shallower bed.

The burning of the gas would be more complicated, needing a burner similar
to that used with bio-mass. Preliminary tests have shown that a vertical air
mixing tube between the gas producer and the burner is beneficial to a good
burn. So air is mixed in 2 stages.

It may be possible to have the gas burn immediately above the firebed, which
would be a preferred method. This would require several air tubes through
the firebed. Experiments still to be done on the stove model.

The main difference between coal and biomass is the air split required, with
~30% of the total air as primary air for coal, and about ~ 18% for
hard-wood, and decreasing for soft-wood and other less dense bio-mass.

RL
Did you see the description (by Tami of
> Chinese stove use of coal in the form of "holey" briquettes? ? Might be
> cleaner burning.

JD
This system, simplifies the whole burning process, If something similar can
be done, this may be the way to go for cooking stoves.

Experiments are on the cards to see if the holes can be added to the BOLO
firebed with lumps or fines, changing the combustion from externally drafted
to internally, which should give all the advantages of burning within a
hole.
It looks like a long road ahead of research and development.

RL
> Also maybe more on the BOLO - how many
> holes, their size and where located? Is there an internal grate?

JD
About 20 % of the circumference is in the form of holes, ~ 1 to 1 1/4" size,
no definite science here, done by the empirical approach. The bottom of the
tin is left solid.

RL
> To get higher cooking efficiency, we have been pushing better
insulation
> that obtainable from a 20 liter can. Is there a need for warmth from the
> stoves in the highlands?

JD.
As the primary use is for space heating, I was told that insulating the tin
would stop the heat from radiating outwards, and would not be acceptable.
Perhaps a reflector above the BOLO would serve the same purpose.

RL
> Thanks for the response about your location and JNB-2. I am guessing you
> are too far way to easily help with setting up something big. If you find
> anyone else actually in JNB, please let us know. If we get there, we will
> look forward to seeing you then.

JD
Unfortunately too far away to do organising there. I will keep you request
in mind.

> (RWL): I am guessing that few of us on the list have a sense of what
> the locomotive firebox looks like (dimensions, measns of air control,
etc).
> Always a chimney? What height? What sort of coal (or wood) consumption
is
> typical (kg/hour)? Are the exit gases passing through a heat exchanger to
> create steam?

JD.
The conventional locomotive boiler the firebox is connected directly to a
horizontal heat exchanger with fire tubes.on the upper area of the front
wall. The whole system is immersed in a single jacket, giving water
coverage above and surrounding the hot surfaces. above the water space is a
steam space. At the outlet end of the exchanger is the smokebox where the
hot gasses accumulate before being ejected into the chimney by the blast of
exhaust steam from the engine. the chimney does not have to be very long,
but must be thermodynamically designed to form a good ejector. So we have a
steam jet blowing into the chimney which is internally in the form of a
nozzle. Coal consumption can be as high as 500KG/ m2 of grate area.
Hard-wood would be expected to be similar with a gassifier system, but only
supplying about half the heat, and lighter material at reduced rates.

To understand the working one starts with the steam engine. The engine uses
a continuously changing volume of steam, which is exhausted into the
ejector,sucking the gasses into the chimney. Creating a vacuum proportional
to this use, this in turn sucks the hot gasses from the firebox through the
exchanger, generating ~1/3 of the steam in this section. This in turn
creates a vacuum above the firebed, which in turn sucks the combustion air
through the grate at the base of the fire. ~ 2/3 of the steam is generated
by the hot walls of the firebox. When a gasifier system is used, secondary
air is sucked through horizontal pipes above the firebed which reduces the
vacuum further, which in turn causes a lower air flow through the firebed
than normal. The sizing of these tubes allows the correct air ratio between
primary air through the grate and the secondary air above. In this way
the heat output is regulated to match the steam demand of the engine.

RL
> It sounds like you are trying hard to make a much needed improvement.
> Best of luck and let us know how we can help.- which is apt to be more on
> wood than coal.

The steam locomotive combustion research, forms the basis for a journey into
stoves, although slightly different mechanics are required. The combustion
principles remain the same. Help in the form of shared ideas and experiences
on this list appears more than adequate. Questions will be asked as they
arise. It could be a few months before the stoves research really starts,
But I will share experiences as they unfold.

Regards,
John Davies.

 

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Tue Sep 18 23:24:43 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Stoves at JNB-02
Message-ID: <d6.bc70a7d.28d968fd@aol.com>

Ron,
Let's look at this coal-burning/ coke making a little. It seems that we
have a few problems.
1. When we burn coal, the heat can be at times very concentrated due to
the density of the fuel as well as the catalyst affect of other elements,
namely sulfur. If we burn it very efficiently it may well become a little
too hot, and the corrosive effects of the sulfur can ruin any thin steel
container overnight.
Recommendation: Use Iron for your stove if possible. If not possible, try
coating the surfaces most affected with a clay paste, baked dry. Using some
fibrous material such as fine dry grass mixed with the clay will help allow
for expansion and contraction. When first fired, the grass exposed to the
oxygen will combust, leaving air and or carbon tubes through the lining. The
clay will also hold heat and insulate promoting steady combustion. It
shouldn't take much fiber.
2. The fuel size is not as important to air flow as is the use of
screened or consistent sized material. If you use chips and dust it seals,
blocking airflow. If you use a consistently sized material it will tend to
leave gaps proportional to the size and shape of the material. For an
example look at filtering sand vs. concrete.
I do agree that the size of the coal will determine the height of the
coal bed. This is due to the resistance airflow encounters going around the
bends. Fine material means air bending many times in a short distance
increasing aerodynamic friction. Large fuel and a shallow coal bed means
much relative air and heat flow, and the heat is lost before it can radiate
down to the next layer. Fire is difficult to maintain burning too cold and
smoking, causing tar and CO production. A heat sink such as Iron or dense
clay will help here, by reradiating heat back to the coal.
The other thing to consider is the draft. The draft has to maintain a
specific airpressure to overcome the friction of the trip through the fuel,
while not draining the heat away. In other words a big chimney can offset
the aerodynamic resistance of a dense thick aggregate coal bed. With too big
of a chimney, and a free flowing shallow coal bed we go back to loosing to
much heat. So we restrict the input air, or use a damper on a sealed chimney
to counteract. Wind increases draft so see above equation. It's all in the
balance.
3. As far as top lighting coal, we already know that the available tinder
is twigs, so use them. Here again, draft must be balanced. At first we put
our coal in the bottom,then we put some crinkled paper strips on the coal,
but not too much. Then we put in our twigs, then some coal fines. The paper
will bottom light the twigs so we need much air at first. Then the twigs and
fines will start to burn down to small coals. At this point cut the air back
a little to hold the heat of the small charcoals next to the top of the coal.
The ash will help insulate. When the smell of coal is strong from ignition
we can again open the air a little to fan the fire. If the charcoal goes out
before the coal ignites, use more twigs.
4. As far as the cornmeal. I believe that the charcoal made from the
cornmeal may have a filtering effect on the smoke, because it would stay
cooler than the burning coke due to its light density and airspace's. The
cornmeal ash may have a lot of potassium oxide too, with the added catalytic
effect, and the absorption of sulfur and nitrogen into it.
5. As far as coal gas, if you are lucky enough to not have excessive
sulfur or nitrogen in your coal, it should burn a lot like the vegetation it
came from 400million years ago. The sulfur compounds and nitrogen compounds
should emit early, this is toxic smoke. Treat it like woodgas heavy in CO and
H, lighter in methane, due to the higher carbon to hydrogen ratios in the
coal. I am surprised that producer gas from bituminous coal can be higher
Btu per cu. ft. than from anthracite because more H is bonded in CH4 making a
denser fuel. Keep the gas hot, and use plenty of preheated secondary air to
burn completely.
If you have any other questions or I missed one, just ask.
Dan Dimiduk

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Wed Sep 19 05:58:43 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: GCC Talk I: Caveats, Glossary
Message-ID: <400e24558b.4558b400e2@pmel.noaa.gov>

Dear Stovers,

Ron suggested that I say a few words about global climate change (GCC)
and stoves. The few turned into many and I am posting them in bite-
sized pieces, all marked "GCC Talk" so that the uninterested can delete
them.

*CAVEATS*

First, I understand that there is plenty of room for disagreement among
reasonable people on whether GCC will be serious, and what should be
done about it. That debate is worthwhile, and is bound to happen many
times over, perhaps here, certainly elsewhere. I enjoy seeing it,
because it is a source of both good argument and serious thought. BUT,
I do not want to initiate any of the acrimonious and useless
discussions that GCC often provokes-- for example, "GCC 'believers' are
radicals intent on taking away our right to prosperity"
versus "GCC 'skeptics' are oil-industry shills with no concern for the
future."

Second, any opinions I post on this list are mine, and may be neither
shared by nor sanctioned by NOAA or any of my colleagues.

Third, I have hesitated to say anything on this topic because I know so
little about it. There is a long list of things I ought to know about
GCC and don’t. Those include the eccentricities of climate modeling;
paleoclimate (the study of past climates and why they occurred);
temperature records and corrections, all but the rudiments of satellite
observations; many statistical tricks for comparing models and
measurements; separation of natural variability from human-induced
effects; atmospheric dynamics and their responses; oceanic transport
and its effect on carbon and heat fluxes; a litany of feedbacks ranging
from sea-ice to methane-hydrate melting to water-vapor changes at
various altitudes; estimation and valuation of climate impacts via
integrated assessments; economics of GCC mitigation; and interpretation
and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. I’m sure you can help me find
a few hundred more. For most of those issues, I’d have ideas of where
to start digging, but probably no time to do so.

With such a list of deficiencies, one might well ask (and I do!)
whether I am qualified to comment on *anything*. I do know a little
about the very basics of climate science, specific agents of global and
regional climate change, first-order guesses about the role that stoves
might play, and I have been watching things smoke for a couple of
years. Equipped with only those modest tools, I launch myself into the
fray.

Finally, I apologize for being either too simplistic or not simple
enough. While writing this, I felt both that I was glossing over
details *and* that I was stating the obvious. It can’t be helped and I
hope I am close to a reasonable middle ground.

* GLOSSARY *

I define each term as I go along, but this business can turn into a
real alphabet soup. All the terms I use are collected here.

BC - Black carbon (soot)
CDM - Clean Development Mechanism, discussed in Kyoto Protocol
CO - Carbon monoxide, which contributes to climate change
CO2 - Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas
GCC - Global Climate Change (implies neither warming nor cooling--
only "change")
GHG - Greenhouse gas, one that traps infrared radiation and keeps
additional heat in the earth-atmosphere system
GWP - Global Warming Potential, a method of estimating a compound’s
contribution to global warming over time
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
N2O - Nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas
NMVOC – Non-methane volatile organic compounds
PIC - Product of incomplete combustion (carbon monoxide, methane, other
hydrocarbons)
TOA - Top of Atmosphere (usually, the tropopause)

-- More to come. --

Tami

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Wed Sep 19 06:02:05 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: GCC Talk II: Measures, Greenhouse gases
Message-ID: <44b0841512.4151244b08@pmel.noaa.gov>

 

* MEASURES OF CLIMATE EFFECTS *

"Climate forcing" is a common method of expressing the effects of GHGs
(greenhouse gases) and other climate-change agents. Forcing is the
change in the downward radiation flux at some altitude-- usually the
top of the atmosphere (TOA)-- and is expressed in watts per square
meter (W/m2). Forcing can be positive (warming the earth-climate
system) or negative (cooling); for GHGs emitted by humans, it is
thought to be around +2.4 W/m2.

A longer-term measure of climate effects is the Global Warming
Potential (GWP), which represents the ability of each GHG to trap heat
in the atmosphere during some time period of interest (often 100
years). The GWP is a dimensionless number given relative to the effects
of carbon dioxide; for example, methane has a GWP of about 21, which
means that 1 kg of methane in the atmosphere will cause 21 times as
much energy retention as 1 kg of CO2 over the next 100 years. While
forcing estimates represent the effects on the climate *right now*, GWP
is a better measure of how much climate change we are committing to
with our emissions.

Neither forcing nor GWP promises an associated temperature change; both
measure changes that humans are imposing on the earth-atmosphere
system, without trying to predict how that system will respond.

* GREENHOUSE GASES *

The most notorious greenhouse gas, and the one that receives the most
media attention, is carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon is transferred to the
atmosphere from the the earth’s crust, mostly as CO2, when fossil fuels
are burned. Some of the CO2 in the air is taken up by plants—an
atmosphere->biosphere transfer. Biomass burning (wood, crop wastes,
dung, etc.) is a biosphere->atmosphere transfer that is offset by
regrowth (atmosphere->biosphere transfer). Therefore, if sustainably
harvested, the use of biofuels is considered GHG-neutral. Many other
gases trap infrared radiation, including methane and nitrous oxide
(N2O). CO2 contributes only about 60% of the total of +2.4 W/m2 forcing
by GHGs. Other products of incomplete combustion (PICs) can have
effects on climate. For example, carbon monoxide (CO) can affect the
oxidizing capability of the atmosphere, which can increase the
lifetimes of some greenhouse gases, and many other gases (hydrocarbons,
NOx) can also have climatic effects. To estimate the GWP of these
gases, one would probably have to rely on a global chemical and
transport model. Because simulations are uncertain and their results
are debatable, GWPs are usually not assigned to these gases.

Kirk Smith has pointed out that biofuel burning is only GHG-neutral if
the combustion is complete, because the GWP of many PICs is greater
than the GWP of CO2. In other words, if you take a molecule of carbon
dioxide, fix it in a tree, and then use a cruddy stove to turn it into
a molecule of methane that is going to absorb more radiation than a CO2
molecule, you *have* actually contributed to GCC. Kirk Smith’s work
shows that if you count CO and NMVOCs, cooking over kerosene actually
adds less to the global warming effect than cooking over biomass—even
if the biomass is sustainably harvested. The same is true of the
charcoal cycle.

The EDGAR web site (http://www.rivm.nl/env/int/coredata/edgar/) gives
information about greenhouse gas emissions. From this site, I extract
the following table based on 1990 data. Teragrams (Tg) is a unit that
some emission people like to use and is the same as Mtonne. "NMVOC"
is "non-methane volatile organic compounds". Residential use probably
comes from the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) “Residential” fuel-
use category, which includes stoves but also natural-gas furnaces in
the U.S., apartment-building boilers, and so on. Therefore, the
fraction of residential emissions might be an upper bound on the stove-
contribution to global emissions.

Gas Total (Tg) Residential (Tg) Fraction residential
CH4 320 17.1 5% *
N2O 0.005 0.0001 2%
NOx 0.10 0.007 7%
SO2 148 0.01 0%
CO 974 218 22% *
NMVOC 177 32 18% *
* "Biomass" (open-field or forest-clearing) burning is also a large
contributor and is not included in the residential totals.

Values for global emissions are usually derived by multiplying total
fuel use for each kind of combustion by some emission factor. For CO2,
this procedure is relatively easy, because one can assume complete
combustion—at worst, that will overestimate emissions by a few percent.
For PICs, however, the combustion process determines the emission
factor. Unless one has a fairly wide range of measurements of the
poorest combustion (highest-emitting categories), emission inventories
are quite uncertain. Before commenting on any of the values above, I’d
want to know the details of the calculations. For example, what are the
emission factors used, and how variable are they? How were blanket IEA
categories such as "Residential" broken down into combustion practices--
or were they? So, take those totals as nothing more than a first-order
estimate (or ask the people who did them for uncertainties).

-- Still more to come --

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Wed Sep 19 06:06:33 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: GCC Talk III: Aerosols
Message-ID: <439dd433f8.433f8439dd@pmel.noaa.gov>

 

* AEROSOLS *

Now for a topic a little closer to what I know: aerosols (particles).
The ones I will discuss are something like 1/100 the diameter of a hair—
about 100 nanometers, in the terms I work with. Most (by number) of the
particles in the atmosphere are around this size. Smaller particles
diffuse quickly and get taken up by bigger particles. Larger particles
fall out pretty quickly.

These small particles are often prevalent in smoke, and are quite
efficient at interacting with solar radiation because they are about
the same size as the peak solar wavelength. Anyone who has had their
view of the sun dimmed because of pollution probably has first-hand
experience with radiative forcing by aerosols. If the sun’s rays are
not getting to your eyes, they are not getting to the ground, either.
Notice that here we are talking about *visible* light, not infrared
radiation.

Aerosols can cause either positive forcing or negative forcing,
depending on how well they absorb light. All particles reflect sunlight
back toward space-- negative forcing, of which the most well-known is
that by sulfate particles. In addition, particles can absorb light and
transfer that energy to the atmosphere-- positive forcing, if the light
would otherwise have reflected off the ground back to space. Therefore,
light-absorbing particles change not only the amount of energy getting
into the earth-atmosphere system, but also where it ends up. Aerosols
have important effects other than the direct radiative ones; for
example, when more particles are around, cloud droplets get smaller and
reflect more light to space.

In one long-term view of GCC, aerosols do not really matter, because
they have short atmospheric lifetimes compared to most GHGs. Stop the
aerosol production, and you will stop the associated forcing within a
week or so, but GHGs will remain in the atmosphere for decades. There
are, however, good reasons to think about aerosol forcing.

First, the forcing per unit mass is a lot higher than that of GHGs,
since they block the sun’s rays rather than just taking up a bit of
infrared radiation in specific wavelength bands. Consider that on a
global-mean basis, forcing by the sulfate aerosols that are in the
atmosphere right now "counteract" 30% of the CO2 forcing, even though
the particles last only about a week and CO2 has been accumulating
since the start of the Industrial Revolution!

Second, on a practical basis, aerosol production is technology-based.
Stopping it requires changing technologies or adding controls, which is
a long-term endeavor that requires planning, policy and long-term
commitment. When you commit to a power plant, you’re committing to its
emissions for 30 years or so.

Third, the spatial patterns of aerosols are quite different than those
of GHGs, because of their short atmospheric lifetimes. That’s why I
put "counteract" in quotes above. While GHGs are fairly well mixed,
aerosols and their associated forcing are concentrated around source
regions. Global-mean TOA forcing is about +1.5 W/m2 for CO2, and –0.4
W/m2 for sulfate. Compare those numbers with recent measurements of
aerosol forcing in the plume from the Indian subcontinent: -20 to –30
W/m2! Immediately obvious: (1) the standard idea of global-mean forcing
can’t represent that situation adequately; (2) there must be some
pretty strong effects on regional climate, also.

Sulfate aerosols, "black carbon" (the only light-absorbing kind, other
than dust), "organic carbon" (other particles that contain carbon),
and "mineral matter" probably comprise most of the particle mass that
we can attribute to human activity. Where do all these particles come
from? When I am not in the lab (too often, as it happens) I stare at my
computer and surf the web and dig in the library, doing tallies of
particle emissions from different kinds of burning. These emission
inventories have the same problems that I outlined for inventories of
CO and CH4. Since the emission inventories are so uncertain, so is our
modeling of climate and temperature response in some regions.

For black and organic carbon, the biggest uncertainty-- and possibly,
the biggest contribution-- is spelled S-T-O-V-E-S. What are the
emission factors? How much of the emitted mass is light-absorbing
carbon? What else is in those particles? There are plenty of non-stove
questions, too: What are emissions from blast furnaces if the top gas
is not captured and re-used? What is the fraction of "upset events" in
oil-burning boilers?

According to IPCC documents, GHG forcing is fairly well known; our
understanding of sulfate aerosol forcing is "low"; and our
understanding of black and organic carbon is "very low". We need to
know more, and that includes something about stoves.

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Wed Sep 19 06:11:30 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: GCC Talk IV: Kyoto
Message-ID: <428b2452dd.452dd428b2@pmel.noaa.gov>

 

* MITIGATION: KYOTO *

This discussion is based on my limited understanding of the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. I am
not-- repeat NOT-- very knowledgeable in this area, and welcome
criticisms and corrections.

The stated goal of climate mitigation is "stabilization of GHG
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." The
term "dangerous interference" can be a focal point for disagreement,
since we have only imperfect climate models (which are probably missing
entire feedback mechanisms) to tell us if or when the effects of
increased GHGs will become "dangerous." The models suggest some adverse
impacts (sea-level rise, extreme temperature and precipitation events,
etc.) along with some positive effects (increased crop and timber
productivity in some regions).

Advocates of GHG stabilization have to act on the concern that a model
based on physical and biological processes *could* predict such adverse
effects-- that is, regardless of whether the model is imperfect, the
potential implications of climate change are enough to worry about.
Further, they have to believe that the best way to approach the problem
is spending money on GHG stabilization, rather than saving that money
to adapt to whatever climatic changes come along-- and some changes are
likely to happen no matter what mitigation path is chosen. The GHG-
stabilization goal is supportable, but certainly debatable.

If one aims for stabilization, there are good reasons to act now rather
than later. Remember that GHG stocks are cumulative, and imagine that
people are able to agree on a stabilization target at some future date
after some period of inaction. If most of the “allowable” carbon has
already been emitted, then less carbon emissions are “allowed” to
future generations. That means not only a lower targeted emission rate--
which raises questions of intergenerational equity-- but a faster rate
of change after the decision is reached. The rapid change would hurt
more than a gradual change, because technologies might not be ready,
and existing but inappropriate technologies might have to be scrapped
before the end of their useful life, and so on.

The Kyoto Protocol represents a first step toward GHG stabilization,
and a very tiny one at that. Climate models typically use “emission
scenarios” developed by IPCC folks (the scenarios themselves are highly
simplified models of future human activity). Kyoto only gets
industrialized countries back to 1990 and asks them to start thinking
about the first 5% reduction, not even addressing what developed
countries will do. To stabilize CO2 at, say, 550 ppm-- about twice the
pre-industrial value-- global CO2 emissions have to start heading
downward by 2025 or so, and continue significant reductions well into
the 22nd century. If we wait until 2040 to start the about-face, CO2
might stabilize at 650 ppm. (Of course, these illustrations are all
uncertain, based on IPCC documents. Given the discord over even so
small a step as Kyoto, one may wonder whether how the remaining
necessary steps toward stabilization will proceed.)

What’s in it for Stovers? The Kyoto Protocol contains language that
allows developed countries to undertake emission reductions in
developing countries, and count those reductions toward what they need
to achieve: the "clean development mechanism" (CDM). Could any of those
reductions provide a financial mechanism to disseminate improved stoves?

Kyoto addresses only six GHGs (or categories thereof), and only three
of those might be relevant to Stovers. Those are CO2, N2O, and CH4--
the other three being gases emitted from industrial processes. It
doesn't address CO, or NMVOCs (non-methane volatile organic compounds),
although they do have climate effects.

Since biomass is considered "CO2-neutral", there are no CO2 credits to
be gained from reducing its use, *unless* one can argue that there is
net reforestation when the fuel is not burned. The stove-improvement
program itself would not qualify as a CDM. One would have to argue the
existence of-- and probably quantify-- a new CO2 sink in the country of
interest. I suspect that this would be difficult to prove, and even
harder to uphold as populations increase.

Switching from fossil fuels to biomass (or other renewables) would
displace net CO2 emission. That transition is unlikely at the level of
individual stove users, given the energy ladder and current
perceptions. Any fuel switch TO biomass would probably have to be a
community-level or larger project.

I took an example from Kirk Smith’s work to calculate a possible credit
for stove improvements based on the PICs alone. (I’m sure that he
and/or Dan Kammen have done this calculation much more accurately than
I have; and remember, this is just one example.) I randomly chose
the "Acacia-traditional mud" stove from his report and calculated the
potential value of removing *all* PICs from that stove. That is a long
shot, considering that some of the improved stoves he tested had
*higher* emissions than the unimproved stoves. Here, I’m hoping that
future programs will improve. I translated the total emissions to
carbon equivalents using the stated GWPs for each compound. My
assumptions were: 3 MJ use/day (can anyone comment on that?), 5-year
stove lifetime (optimistic), $20/tonne carbon avoided (another number
open for comment). For the Kyoto-targeted GHGs, CH4 and N2O, the
avoided carbon-equivalent was 60 kg C equivalent per stove, or $1.20
credit per stove. Is that enough to make a difference in funding
dissemination?

Next, if we include *all* greenhouse-active compounds, and not just the
Kyoto-targeted ones, I calculate that about 270 kg of carbon-equivalent
would be avoided over the stove’s lifetime. At $20/tonne, the credit
rises to about $5.40 per stove. Now it becomes apparent that the stove
credit ought to be higher than Kyoto allows it to be-- so Kyoto is
(probably unintentionally) biased against low-technology combustion.

This paints a bleak picture of CDM for stoves under Kyoto (I repeat,
though, that I’m not well versed in these topics). To continue-- and
there IS somewhere to go-- we have add a giant leap.

-- One more to come --

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Wed Sep 19 06:21:46 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: GCC Talk V: Beyond Kyoto?
Message-ID: <4453040214.4021444530@pmel.noaa.gov>

 

* MITIGATION: BEYOND KYOTO? *

(A large basket full of caveats and disclaimers is installed here. Take
several before you go on-- stock up! These are my thoughts, still in
progress, very open to discussion and debate! Also, I have no idea
about the nature of discussions that occur at COP-- possibly these very
ideas have been tried and rejected for reasons that may seem obvious to
politicos.)

Take the following facts, the first two from the table under
the "Greenhouse Gas" topic and the third from my (yet unpublished and
highly uncertain) work on emission inventories:
1. Residential stoves emit a large fraction of global burden of CO,
which has climate effects.
2. These stoves are responsible for a large fraction of the global
burden of NMVOCs, which have climate effects.
3. These stoves are responsible for a large fraction of the global
burden of black and organic carbon, which have climate effects. (I
won’t commit to a value; it might be something like 25-50%.)
4. These stoves are responsible for only a small fraction of the global
burden of Kyoto-targeted GHGs.

In other words, the potentially biggest contribution from developing
countries-- and Stovers-- in mitigating climate change IS NOT COVERED
under the Kyoto Protocol. How could this be? Well, Kyoto has a narrow
focus on a few GHGs. That’s fine, because it deals with commitments by
industrialized nations, for which the primary climate effects are
probably the listed GHGs; furthermore, the simplification was probably
necessary for this first round of negotiation. However, Kyoto has
provided no mechanism for addressing what may be the developing world’s
*current* primary effects on climate.

[I suppose that one could nitpick Article 12 (which presents the CDM)
and argue that the "operational entities" engaged to examine emission
reductions would recognize the "real, measurable and long-term benefits
related to the mitigation of climate change" from stove improvements,
and therefore could go about certifying one sort of emission reduction
as a CO2-equivalent reduction. The workability could hang on those
unnamed entities, and having some idea of the stiffness of bureaucracy,
I have doubts that this path would work.]

Again, Kyoto is only the first step in a long path. I personally
believe that there could be large benefits from a next step that goes
beyond simple GHG reduction. This step should contemplate climate
change as a whole by allowing credit for reduction of aerosols and
gaseous PICs. Negotiating this credit is unlikely to be easy, but it
could be rewarding. With all due respect for the hard work that went
into the Kyoto agreement, it favors a potential world with low CO2 but
high CO and aerosol emissions, over a potential world in which fuel-use
is slightly higher but cleaner. The first scenario ends up with lower
GHG concentrations; the second may actually have fewer adverse climate
effects. The first scenario may exacerbate the inequities in developing
countries which have little to offer in the way of potential reductions
due to their low net CO2 emissions; the second might recognize
that "clean development" encompasses more than just reducing a few
GHGs.

A small group of people has been talking about an idea for targeting
black-carbon and methane emissions to slow warming
(http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/forcings/altscenario/). Using
modeled emission scenarios, they have suggested that it is possible to
realize a small additional climate forcing in the year 2050 by paying
attention to BC and CH4, while achieving smaller reductions in CO2 than
would otherwise be required. I will call this the "BC-offset" proposal.

What does that mean to stoves? Using a (VERY rough) GWP of 100 for
black carbon (BC, or soot), and assuming that 25% of the emitted
particles measured are BC, I calculate that the additional BC offset
for the Acacia-stove would result in a credit of $0.27 per stove. That
is not a lot of money, when compared to the rest of the credits.
However, the global-warming potential is quite dependent on the choice
of timeframe used to calculate GWP. For example, if one decides to
value BC on a 25-year timeframe instead of a 100-year timeframe, the
value of BC reductions increases relative to CO2 reductions. That’s
because all the possible forcing by BC still occurs within the 25
years. I believe the BC-offset proposal is looking at timeframes
shorter than 100 years.

The BC-offset proposal has a strong advantage: a very good way to
reduce BC is probably to address millions of small, relatively
inexpensive, but highly polluting sources (i.e. stoves, small industry,
and out-of-tune vehicles). These changes could be very beneficial to
public health and regional air quality.

The proposal also has several strikes against it:
1. If cuts are made to BC only, and not to CO2, we will still
accumulate atmospheric GHGs, and might be stuck with the need for quick
reductions that I described earlier.
2. Any attempt at equating BC and CO2 emissions must rely on model
results to estimate the effects of BC. Since BC participates in a large
number of climate feedbacks, the discussion could degenerate into
debate about whose model is better and what long-term experiments need
to be done to assess BC forcing.
3. Radiative forcing by aerosols is dissimilar from radiative forcing
by GHGs, as discussed previously. Although BC produces a net positive
forcing at TOA, it causes *negative* forcing at the surface. Reducing
BC emissions would actually increase radiative flux at the ground. The
simplistic notion of regulating net TOA forcing may not result in
maximum amelioration of climate change.
4. The possibility of reducing BC alone is physically questionable.
Organic carbon and fly ash do not absorb light, and cool the climate
instead of warming it. Since they are emitted along with BC, any
control is likely to reduce these species as well. The result could be
a net zero change in forcing at TOA.
5. It is ethically questionable to cut BC only, when many other
combustion products (organic carbon, sulfates) also have severe health
effects. Reducing BC alone would entail a *partial* intervention into
some serious health problems, when a much more complete intervention
could be possible for a small incremental cost.

[Aside, a view from Tami’s Dream World: I envision developing countries
getting credit for reductions in particles *of any type*, stacked
against industrialized countries reducing GHGs. This would occur
without undue dependence on model results, without belief that any one
action can truly offset another inaction, and with a modicum of faith
that reduction in anthropogenic footprint will yield both immediate and
long-term benefits-- in sum, without the tit-for-tat bickering that is
probably inseparable from the agreement process.]

Given the near-zero probability that Tami's Dream World exists, in what
ways could similar effects be achieved? In what follows, I will ask
three questions about the Kyoto CDM. I do not mean to be arrogant by
suggesting modifications to Kyoto; I know that hundreds of people have
worked on it, and that no alterations will ever be simple. However,
having delivered several criticisms of the current and proposed
mechanisms, I feel obligated to attempt some constructive suggestions
as well. These have not been thoroughly examined, and need to be
roundly criticized by as many people as possible.

1. What would happen if the CDM allowed reductions in additional gases
to count as GHG-equivalent emission reductions? These would include CO
and NMVOCs (with additional speciation required-- at least by chemical
functional group).
- A major contribution to GCC (PICs from low-technology combustion)
would be more adequately assessed.
- The stove-improvement credit might be increased to a value that
facilitates dissemination.
- Reducing GHG-relevant emissions would fall directly in line with
reducing health-relevant emissions, diminishing the number of "false
choices" between GCC amelioration and public-health improvements.
- Developing countries could either benefit through the CDM, or could
have a chance to join climate accords by committing to GCC mitigation
strategies that are more technically and economically feasible than CO2
reductions. This, in turn, could be an answer to the complaint that
developing countries are not participating in climate accords.
- GWPs for several PICs would have to be agreed upon. This process
would rely on models with high uncertainty, and that uncertainty would
have to be accepted for the sake of progress.

2. What would happen if aerosols were recognized as major climate-
forcing agents, and a mechanism were provided to quantify a "GCP"
(global change potential) analogous to GWP, allowable as credit toward
GHG reduction targets? This would require agreement that undesirable
climate interference may result from *either* reductions or increases
in the radiative balance at the TOA, at the ground, and within the
atmosphere itself. The GCP might be a very simple weighted average of
these effects.
- A major contribution of low-technology combustion to GCC and regional
climate change would be more adequately assessed.
- Again, the stove-improvement credit might be increased further,
reducing GCC-relevant emissions would fall directly in line with
reducing health-relevant emissions, and developing countries could
benefit in more than one way.
- This will be a contentious issue, as no "apples-apples" comparison
between GHGs and aerosols will be possible. There will be no true
offsetting, but again, progress will require acceptance of uncertainty,
and a willingness to let go of fencing with models after a certain
amount of discussion.

3. What would happen if current differences between developed and
developing countries were represented by assigning tiered GCP time-
frames for calculating emission-reduction credits? [For example, an
industrialized country could accomplish reductions of aerosol emissions
in a developing country, and receive credit for those reductions
compared to CO2 on a 100-year time-frame. However, if the developing
country itself undertook those reductions, it might receive credits
compared to CO2 on a 10-year time-frame.]
- This mechanism would be intended to provide an entry point for
developing countries into climate accords, allowing them relatively
higher credit for addressing their more immediate, but still climate-
relevant, problems.
- Industrialized countries would be encouraged to act with a long-term
view.
- The "economies in transition" could be assigned intermediate time-
frames.
- The appropriate GCP timeframe would have to be reanalyzed
periodically for each country. Assignment and later adjustment of time-
frames will probably be a very contentious issue. Perhaps these could
be tied to fixed economic or development indicators.
- It is possible that this mechanism would cause a shift of emission-
intensive industries into countries with lower assigned time-frames.
However, the same argument is currently applied to the Kyoto Protocol,
which does not address emissions from developing countries at all.

Again-- this section in particular is laden with opinions, with very
little injection of policy-reality.

The end, at last!!

~Tami

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From mheat at mha-net.org Wed Sep 19 07:46:09 2001
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Dyson GCC Paper
In-Reply-To: <428b2452dd.452dd428b2@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010919074007.00e69a30@127.0.0.1>

Further to Tami's very interesting posts regarding climate change, below
are the URL's for another good paper that was recently posted to the
greenbuilding list:

The Science and Politics of Climate

Freeman J. Dyson
Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey

Talk given at JPL, January 13, 1999
{Full text 60 minutes. With section 4 omitted, 50 minutes}

http://mha-net.org/docs/v8n2/Dyson1.txt
http://mha-net.org/docs/v8n2/Dyson2.txt
http://mha-net.org/docs/v8n2/Dyson3.txt
http://mha-net.org/docs/v8n2/Dyson4.txt

Best ...... Norbert
----------------------------------------
Norbert Senf---------- mheat@mha-net.org-nospam
Masonry Stove Builders (remove -nospam)
RR 5, Shawville------- www.heatkit.com
Quebec J0X 2Y0-------- fax:-----819.647.6082
---------------------- voice:---819.647.5092


 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Wed Sep 19 11:27:40 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Stoves at JNB-02
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010913173720.01a55100@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <008e01c1411d$ab765300$cf7c27c4@jmdavies>

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
To: John Davies <jmdavies@xsinet.co.za>; <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Stoves at JNB-02

Hi AGAIN,

> > fuel. Smoke prevention was not even considered as this part of the burn
is
> > in the open air. Nothing scientific, purely "rule of thumb".
>
> RWL: My hope is that what we have been calling a charcoal-making stove
can
> possibly be used with coal rather than wood to produce a "coke-making"
stove
> (CMS). I am not aware of any tests with coal anywhere - but think it is
> worth the effort in that direction. Basically, the early smoky phase
would
> be replaced by pyrolysis and combustion of the smoke. The issues to
> experiment on start with learning more about the type of coal that is
> available - name (anthracite, etc - I am looking I guess for a measure of
> softness - more like peat or more like rocks?) , variability in size of
lump
> (average is 1.5"?), etc. Do users ever break it up further themselves?
(I
> assume that someone thinks that it is now a good size lump.) Your
> description of a "short chimney" says that higher airflows are needed
during
> startup. They certainly are needed for a CMS. .

The coal quality varies from soft to hard, every time that I buy a bag for
my locomotive, I get something different. This would need simple air control
methods in order to burn what is available.Size varies considerably. There
are no coal merchants in the immediate area, so one has to rely on the
informal sector for supplies. the seller dealing in whatever coal that will
give the biggest profit margin. The user breaks it to the required size.

Anthracite is available at a price, transported from about 200 miles away.
Costs R37 instead of R17. It also requires more kindling to ignite and takes
longer. It is used in smoke-free zones in the more affluent areas.
Firewood for kindling is a similar scenario.

It would be nice to be able to replace this with cheap coal, or garden waste
in my own home. Having cheap heating, while the neighbours and authorities,
are convinced that I am using expensive smokeless fuel. ( my personal longer
term project, requiring a higher level of technology )

> >
> > The holes in the perimeter of the tin are numerous and big enough to
allow
> > "good burning" without allowing hot coals to fall out. No holes in the
> > bottom. From what I could gather about 1 to 1 1/4 ". covering about 20%
of
> > the surface. The coal which is ungraded is broken down to a maximum size
> of
> > ~1 1/2". The fire is prepared by a 3" layer of crumpled news paper
> > followed by a layer of kindling, upon which the coal and fines are
placed
> > roughly about 1/2 the capacity of the tin, but varying according to the
> > final coke bed required. "The fines help to promote ignition of the
coal"
>
> (RWL): I guess that 1.5 " coal is OK. You can't have lots of
smaller
> stuff in between or the air flow will be too restricted. The lighting
will
> have to be on top, not the bottom. My experience is that paper will leave
> behind too much residue and will block the needed air flow. You need
> something finer as tinder. The coal should be very dry. The first time,
I
> would try spreading a little vaseline right on the uppermost surface of
the
> top layer of coal lumps. Later you can find something cheaper as a
starter

I now try to emulate reactions! here and below "-------"

" But this is the way that it is done, the fines help with the ignition, in
that way expensive kindling is saved, paper is free"

> In a recent message to Paul Anderson, I gave a description of the key
> parts of a CMS. What has to be done for the Bolo - is put many fewer
holes
> (3?) at the bottom for the primary air. (these can be plugged to control
the
> thermal output) Then a single row of holes (if you are startng with sheet
> metal) just above the layers of coal. And plenty of pipe above the
> secondary air holes (or ring). I would start with stwo maller cans -
maybe
> 15-20 cm across and 20-25 cm high - with primary air holes only at the
> bottom of the fuel container. A gap of 3-5 mm before your upper "small
> chimney" should provide plenty enough secondary air. All of these steps
> work well with sticks. The issue is over how to vary this with coal
> replacing wood. I am aware of noone who can tell us - but the tests
> shouldn't take long. Main caution -this WILL NOT work with bottom
lighting.
> >
I have done one experiment with my tin can set up using coal. with top
lighting.
This proceeded in a similar manner to the making of charcoal, but due to the
higher carbon and ash content of the coal the gasses produced were not as
prolific as with wood, in the same can. The air mixture also had to be
different. The results were promising. Wood requires a ~18 / 82% split
between primary and secondary air and coal at ~ 30 / 70.

>> Those not
> > busy with other tasks gather around the fires for warmth forming a
social
> > group, moving from BOLO to BOLO visiting the neighbours etc.
> >
> This social custom can continue - but need not. Could be shorter. My
> hope would be that right from the start, the combustion of the "smoke"
would
> be sufficiently clean that the unit could be placed indoors. I believe
you
> will find that there was an enormous amount of energy in the early
escaping
> smoke. When the pyrolysis has gone from top to bottom (maybe an hour
> later), it will really start smoking as you now don't have enough air.
You
> either quench (and use the newly made "coke" in another geometry) or have
to
> remove all of the lower primary air plugs and get a lot more air in
through
> the bottom.

" What holes in the bottom. all the fire and ash will fall out when,carrying
into the house, next you will be telling us that we must find another tin
for this purpose, much simpler to keep the ash in the BOLO "

> > When the volatiles are burned off and the smoke stops, a hand full of
> > "mealie meal" ( corn meal ) is sprinkled over the coals." this flares
up,
> > taking away the poisonous gasses from the fire ". ( IS THIS
SUPERSTITION,
> OR
> > COULD THERE BE A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION ? )
> >
> (RWL): I can think of no scientific explanation. But no one is
getting
> hurt by this explanation either. The smoking stopped when the coal had
been
> turned (with huge inefficiencies) into coke. Better to cook and eat the
> mealy meal.

Many strange truths have emerged from traditional customs. I was wondering
if there might be a remote possibility, that the meal contains traces of
organic metal salts that act as a catalyst promoting the conversion of CO to
CO2 in the presence of minimum excess air. ( just a thought ) Coal ash acts
in this way in the locomotive gasifier to produce CO from CO2 and Carbon at
lower temperatures than would be required without it. ( L D Porta )

>Something like this can still be done - but I would shake the (now red
> hot) coke out from the CMS and put it into something more like a "jiko".
> The cooking can be directly on the coke, I guess.

AS ABOVE
" Are you going to give me this fancy stuff for free." and the unspoken
thoughts are, " when he stops worrying us, we can go back to our BOLO, and
convert these objects, into something of better use, after all the BOLO is
much simpler to use"

> The other alternative is to look into making very flimsy vent hoods
out
> of stiff wire and a foil.

Now that is a good idea. Plenty of free used foil is available at the local
garbage dump. serving "the first world town"

> (RWL): I wish we could report on past experiments with
"Coke-Making" -
> we are not the right list (being mostly interested in improving wood use)
.
> However, I know there are a few people on the list who currently work at
> laboratories specializing in coal - and there are some who know how to
find
> the literature on the former common practice of making "Town gas" from
coal
> (We are describing here something close to that but at the household
scale.)
> . I hope some of those can speak up on the differences between wood and
> coal that would or would not lend hope for accomplishing the big
> improvements that I think may be possible.

Coke plants have largely closed down. Sasol is supplying most of the
industrialised areas in the country with town gas, or Methane rich gas, a
by-product of their operations. This is only sold to industry. With the
commissioning of the natural gas pipeline from Mozambique in a few years,
the town gas system will be converted to natural gas.

There was a company in JNB partially pyrolysing coal in order to produce
certain chemicals, this coal was sold as low smoke coal, but cost 15% more.
No one wanted it, it cost more!

> Late thought - grading the coal will probably be useful. Smaller
lumps
> go to smaller stoves, etc. Fines can go to making briquettes. I would
try
> for at least 10-15 lumps in a diameter (based on my experience with
wood).
> Having only a few lumps in a diameter will not give enough surface area
and
> radiant recapture. This is a lot like the question of the right hole
> diameter in a "holey" briquette. If you are not getting good air flow,
try
> reducing the height of the coal layers and try adding extra height to the
> upper burner/chimney - to get more draft. When the flame extinguishes
for
> any reason (too lttle primary air, a puff of wind, etc), and your
pyrolysis
> front still has not reached the bottom, the smoke in the upper system
should
> still be ready for easy re-lighting. At first be sure you have plenty of
> matches. As you becme more skilled, you should eventually only need a
> single match.

But somehow I cannot see this type of stove, with a burner up above the
gasifier requiring separate ignition, and a fairly technical design, being
acceptable to the people that need it.

Where I do see a possibility is with a system similar to the locomotive
where the gas burns immediately above the bed and always has an ignition
source. I see a cooking top making use of the pyrolysis gas, which can then
be removed, leaving behind something resembling the BOLO with the hot coke.
The secondary air mixing has to be addressed, but I have seen some of Tom
Reeds pellet stove designs which would appear to be suitable, with a little
modification.

My feeling is that an acceptable stove will resemble the BOLO, be handled
like one, have a minimum of visible modifications and change in handling
methods. When I mentioned top lighting, I was told by more than one that it
could not work. How does one educate the ignorant ??? I Believe, one small
step at a time.

Introduce a small change with large benefits, then, when one has a captive
audience that are receptive to change, start introducing the finer designs.
It takes a lifetime in Africa to begin to understand the way these people
think.

The position is different with the young generation now at school. This area
would provide a base for innovative change. I do not know if any tuition is
being given in this respect. More research needed.

Cost is a large factor, if it costs 1 cent more, it costs too much.
Sometimes it is resistance , but often it is a fact that the extra cent is
not available.

Talking about long term economics and savings is a waste of time, the
concept is totally foreign. Unless a kind benefactor with a very deep
pocket can be found, to give, on a never ending basis to millions of people,
Introducing a multy-appliance system will be in vain.

Our good intentions will have to be very carefully formulated. If these
people can measure the savings in the first week, at no additional cost, and
the health improvement can be felt in the first month, then we will have won
a battle against ignorance.

The way to go is to KISS it. ( Keep it stupidly simple )

On the other hand, if you are supplying to a more affluent market that can
afford to pay for technology, then apply it in a way that is difficult to
copy, and the customers will come back again. This is an area that I will
leave to the businessmen.

Regards,
John.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Wed Sep 19 16:51:17 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:05 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, 'forced' air water heater, and shapes
Message-ID: <001b01c140e7$ac2c6c20$52e80fc4@home>

Dear Stovers

>Don't forget to add pulse combustion to the list of items needing research.

Dang! But that sounds interesting! But I'd better stick to something I am
already working on.

Briquette shape:
I think the most important part of the shape relates to its getting going!
If we can't light it there is no point making them. I suspect a lot of
shapes will work. I am only interested at the moment in what can be
hand-formed because I am trying to get people employed, especially at
municipal dumps and garbage sorting/recycling facilities.

I agree with Paul: "I am NOT against FC".

There is at least one product on the South African market that uses natural
draft to provide 'forced air' (this is not impossible). There is a water
heater that uses paraffin variously called something like Geyser 2000 and
its 2 knock offs (a common problem for inventers here). One man in
Nelspruit has a patent on the air admission holes. It is a very tall (7
foot) small diameter stainless steel double tube (about 70mm dia) with a cup
of paraffin at the bottom. When this thing is lighted up the long draft and
thick, wide wick and high burning temperature cause this thing to roar like
an engine. There is a fitting to feed water into the top and out the bottom
of the outer of the two concentric tubes. It costs about $125 - all
stainless steel. It is an imaginative way to get 'forced air' by extending
the system upwards and shrinking the diameter. They work really well and
are very fast.

John notes:
>...the BOLO. An argument ensued as to it's name,

I found the same thing. My own staff couldn't agree on what it was called.
I think they all derive from the 'fenagalo' pronounciation of the English
word 'barrel'.

>a tin which could be prepared in different ways to
>produce hot smokeless coals.

I want to draw a distinction between what John described and the Mbaula
which is being promoted in Midrand. The Mbaula has three parts and the bolo
(if we can agree to call it that) is a can (usually 20 litres) with holes
punched in it.

I am very interested to hear about the mass of the coal usually loaded into
the bolo by an ordinary family cooking an ordinary meal. The viability of a
biomass fuel competing against the coal has to be on the basis of cost. The
bolo is extremely wasteful of heat, but that heat is cheap-cheap. What is
actually spent cooking a meal? Can biomass offer a better 'deal'?

>RWL: ...produce a "coke-making" stove (CMS).

You are making me afraid! What gasses come off a coke-making device? These
things are indoors a lot of the time.

>RWL:Basically, the early smoky phase would be replaced by
>pyrolysis and combustion of the smoke.

Any decent device will seek to do this and as far as I can see, there isn't
one available. Unfortunately (as I mentioned earlier) the history of stove
manufacturing and efficiency is dismal in this region. It is as if people
literally didn't know how fuel burned when they decide on how to make the
stoves. Falkirk, one of the big pot and stove makers (cast iron) went under
a few years ago. I have their last prototype of a 'new small coal and wood
stove' in my workshop. It is literally a joke. We have to get that smoke
burned - they paid for the fuel and it is being thrown away.

>RWL:Your description of a "short chimney" says
>that higher airflows are needed during startup.

It is important to know about the quality of coal because that is why the
pattern of use described by John exists. The coal comes from the
higher-volatiles mines. That is because it is easier to light. Swazi coal
is about 35 MJ per Kg. It is semi-anthracitic and nearly impossible to get
lighted in an ordinary stove. No one uses it. Coal sold here is imported
from the RSA. The highveldt coal comes from places between Johannesburg and
the Swazi border. Our coal is far away in the lowveldt. The ideal coal for
'smokeless' burning comes from Newcastle about 3 hours south of here. That
is not available in Secunda as far as I know. There is a lot of work done
by the late Professor Horsefall (Coal Chair, Wits U) on driving off the
volaties using waste heat from the Germiston Power Plant to make a low-smoke
coal. It was hard to light.

Cooking over 'heating' coal is a smelly task. The food picks up the flavour
of the sulphur. To prevent this they light the thing in the way described
and run it quite hot for a while. The purpose of this is to get the
volatives with most of the sulphur burned off immediately, outside the
house. Because of the lack of preheated secondary air and copious
quantities of cold (sometimes very cold) primary air, the temporary chimney
is added to give it a draft boost. A powerful fire results and masses,
almost unbelievable amounts, of smoke emerge. It is pretty crummy coal.
The tossing of mealie meal on to the fire is interesting. It (briefly)
accomplishes what should be happening all the time: it cause the smoke to
ignite above the coal bed by supporting a flame into the hot smoke zone.

Once the volatiles are burned off and there remains a hot bed of burning
lumps, it can be used for cooking without it flavouring the food. No one
will cook on the fire until the smoke has gone.

The suggestions about lighting it at the top and burning down are only going
to be implemented if there is no smell from the coals as they cook. This
would require changing people's pattern of getting rid of the volatiles
first. There is a distinct 2-burn process here and if the proposed top-down
system doesn't achieve that, people would assume that the food will stink
and that they will die from the fumes. I would like to see the burn done to
watch the smoky-phase's duration.

>RWL: I believe you will find that there was an enormous
>amount of energy in the early escaping smoke.

Realistically speaking, if this venting/burning off stage cannot be
eliminated, the cost per MJ of the fuel may well be above that of biomass
fuel even though per MJ is it cheap. The biomass fuel is considerably
cleaner and easier to light, requires almost no heating up period and can be
turned off quickly (which is a plus consideration in summer when space
heating is not required).

>RWL: Death must have been caused by carbon monoxide - odorless.

If there is CO in the smoke, we are losing a lot of heat. It should be
reduced to CO2 for safety and efficiency.

Ron says: 'You are describing a very poor method of
>using coal, I am pretty sure.

It is nothing less than a calamity. The pollution from the partially burned
volatiles has to be seen to be believed. It looks like a huge grass fire in
the area each morning and evening. Even on the highway driving by my eyes
sting and breathing is difficult inside the pickup truck.

Dan suggests: A heat sink such as Iron or dense
>clay will help here, by reradiating heat back to the coal.

The main problem with burning biomass in a coal stove is excessive wall
mass. Rather a reflective surface than mass. The mass of a coal stove is
because it is made from the thinnest possible cast iron, rather than because
it needs mass to work. These stoves are simply copied from English
foundries of the 1700's. Getting that mass heated up in the beginning
causes the secondary air to remain unheated with very wasteful results.

I was putting together the 9-per-time briqueting machine today. Hopefully
you can see the output in a week or so.

Regards to all and thanks for so many contributions to this subject!
Crispin

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Thu Sep 20 03:06:25 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, 'forced' air water heater, and shapes
Message-ID: <109.5eebd1b.28dae432@aol.com>

Just for the record. The extra thermal mass recommended was to keep large
pieces of coal burning, not biomass. Most biomass has enough volatiles to
not need so much mass in a small, short duration stove. It also has less
total heat to maintain temp. per volume. The insulation factors are not as
important if one is focused only on radiating heat outward as compared to
cooking. A top reflective hood would help in that instance as described by
Ron.
Try briquettes with little ridges like the splines on a transmission
shaft, to enable quick igniton but slow burning thereafter.
Dan Dimiduk

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From dstill at epud.net Thu Sep 20 03:33:27 2001
From: dstill at epud.net (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Summary for Dan Kammen
Message-ID: <002001c1418f$0acfbdc0$4815210c@default>

Dear Stovers:

Thought that I would try to put together my thoughts on vernacular cooking
stoves. And here, without the diagrams, unfortunately, is the result.

Best,

Dean

Designing Modern Cooking Stoves:
A Quick Summary for the Shell Foundation Discussions

Dean Still
Aprovecho Research Center

 

Changing paradigms

Although greatly under appreciated, the open fire has many advantages
compared to high mass, older style cooking stoves. If sticks of wood are
expertly fed into an open fire, the results can be almost complete, and
therefore clean, combustion. Metering the fuel as it is used can create a
hot fire that combusts gases before they escape as smoke. The flame and hot
air naturally rise up out of the fire, touching a great deal of the entire
surface area of the outside of the pot. No heat is absorbed and lost into
the stove body. The coals radiate heat into the pot. The very hot, flame
generated temperatures close to the pot assist efficient convective heat
transfer. The open fire (three-stone fire) mostly in laboratory tests, can
heat up food faster, often uses less fuel, and can burn cleaner than many of
the first generation of cooking stoves.

(In the same way, Model T automobiles smoked a lot more and were not as fuel
efficient or convenient as 2001 model Toyotas. A lot of people preferred
horses rather than the first generation of cars.)

The above statements conflict with assumptions found in stove articles and
books published twenty-five years ago. The open fire was thought to be very
inefficient, and as a direct corollary almost any stove was accepted as an
improvement. Open fires were often assigned efficiencies of 3 to 7%. Today,
we know that efficiencies of the open fire, the percent of the released heat
that gets into the pot(s), can be much higher. Outdoor tests at Aprovecho in
a 10MPH wind conducted by 14 college students, who were amateur fire makers,
making 52 fires, resulted in an average result of 11.3%. The top of the
amateur range was around 18%, showing where experts who value conservation
might begin.

Faults of the open fire

1.) Most open fires are not carefully tended. People do not use dry wood.
The fire smokes in practice and inhaled smoke causes serious health
problems.
2.) Fires die down quickly; the temptation is to build an overly large fire.
3.) Wind can divert flame and greatly prolong cooking times.
4.) An open fire is messy. Pots and kitchen are covered in soot.
5.) One fire can cook multiple pots of food on a stove, not so over an open
fire.
6.) In practice, open fires can be wasteful of firewood and other types of
biomass.
7.) An open fire is very dangerous, burns are commonplace.

Earth is not insulation

Any mass around the open fire diverts heat intended to cook food. As well,
mass in the stove body can absorb heat, cooling combustion temperatures,
resulting in a smokier fire, and prolonging the heating of the pot. Twenty
some years ago, earth was thought to be a type of insulation. Making earthen
walls around the fire was a common method of stove building. The paradigm of
earth as insulation lent credence to this approach. The appealing idea
(since earth is free) was that the earth-insulation would help to keep the
combustion temperatures high and that the walls would direct errant flames
at the pot.

Studies by Baldwin and others showed the inherent problem in these designs.
Earth is not “insulation”; it is a better example of thermal mass. The
insulative value of earth is low, about 1/4 R per inch of thickness. Earth
is also moderately conductive. Instead of insulating around the fire,
earthen walls absorb and divert useful heat resulting in stoves that, unless
they are in windy conditions, can use more fuel than open fires and tend to
be as smoky or worse. Designing stoves that improve on an open fire requires
study, testing, analysis, and an understanding of thermodynamics. Many
engineers and dedicated scientists now largely agree how improved stoves can
be built. These modern stoves are, at their best, twice as fuel efficient
and less smoky than the expertly operated open fire.

How is the modern stove improving over an open fire? First, stoves can burn
wood more cleanly creating less pollution. Then, the stove chimney removes
the remaining harmful emissions from the room. Second, by improving how much
heat enters the pot(s) of food, stoves can use less fuel. Stoves create a
cleaner, safer environment. Cooking is made easier, as well.

How to reduce the amount of biomass used for cooking

Even smoky open fires are turning most of the combusting wood into heat.
Smoky fires are often 80 to 90% efficient. On the other hand, the upper
limit of heat transfer to the pot is around 50% in cooking stoves without
fans. Frequently only 20% of the released heat from biomass makes it into
the pot. A common rule in engineering, that improving the least efficient
part of a machine results in the greatest gain in improving system
efficiency, has directed stove researchers to concentrate on better ways to
capture a greater percentage of heat into pot(s). Since the hardest thing to
accomplish in a cooking stove is capturing the heat, improving the heat
transfer efficiency determines to a large extent the fuel saving ability of
the stove. Achieving almost complete combustion cleans up emissions but it
is of secondary importance when designing a stove that burns less wood.

The important design principles that increase heat transfer to the pot(s)
are:

1.) Force the heat to rub against as much of the pot(s) outer surface as
possible. The heat is forced through small insulated ducts to scrape against
the pot(s).

2.) Insulate everywhere around the fire except where heat touches the
pot(s). Insulation is made up of small isolated layers of air in a
lightweight, relatively non-conductive material. Wood ash, firebrick, dead
air spaces, pumice rock, perlite, vermiculite, etc. are good insulators used
in vernacular stoves.

3.) Get the pot near to the hot flames. The intense heat is much better at
heating food than moderate heat.

4.) Metal pots conduct heat better than clay pots. Multiple pots capture
more of the heat than single pots.

5.) Increase the speed of the heat as it hits the pots. Faster hot flue
gases punch through the still air that surrounds the pot(s).

How to increase combustion efficiency

Changing all of the biomass into flame is important because fewer poisons
are released into the air. If the stove is successful these poisons are
burned up inside the combustion chamber. Indoor air pollution can be
eliminated by directing harmful emissions up a chimney and out of the
kitchen but the plan fails if smoke from the neighbor’s stove wafts back in
through the open window. Complete initial combustion is preferable.

The modern cooking stove will burn cleaner than the open fire because:

1.) It insulates around the fire. Insulation keeps the fire hot and fierce.
Smoke, unburnt fuel, cannot easily escape the hot fire.

2.) Does not let too much cool air into the fire.

3.) The good stove preheats the air that feeds the fire. Swirling air mixes
gases, air, and flame to achieve more complete combustion.

4.) The cook has an easier time making small hot fires since the insulated
combustion chamber and the draft of the chimney keep the fire going
automatically. The open fire easily goes out which tempts cooks to make
overly large fires.

5.) Metering the fuel is very important. Sticks of biomass lay side by side
and burn at the tips as they are pushed into the fire as the fuel is used.
Not adding too much fuel greatly assists clean burning.

6.) Smoke, that escapes the fire, may be burned up as it passes through hot
parts of the cooking stove that provide an improved region for secondary
combustion.

These, and other design characteristics, improve the efficiency of
combustion. It is quite possible to make simple, inexpensive stoves that
smoke much less and use about half the fuel compared to a carefully tended
open fire. Typically, between 90-99% of the fuel is changed into heat and
about 40% of the heat enters the pot(s). Many modern stoves can capture
approximately 35% of the heat into the cooking food. Forcing heat to contact
many pots decreases the loss of valuable heat up the chimney. Adding a
chimney to any cooking stove, which usually costs less than $10, is a
powerful technique that addresses the hazard of breathing the harmful
pollutants in smoke.

Retained heat cookers save even more fuel!

Much greater fuel efficiency can be obtained by using retained heat cookers.
Once a pot of food has boiled for five to ten minutes, usually all the
contents are at 100 degrees C. Removing the full pot from the flame and
placing it in an insulated, airtight box allows the food to finish cooking
without the addition of more heat. The insulated, airtight box uses the
retained heat to finish cooking food, replacing long hours of simmering over
flame.(A relatively airtight fireless cooker with insulation rated at R-7
will successfully cook pinto beans after ten minutes of boiling.)

The use of a retained heat cooker (often called a Haybox) can result in
savings of over two thirds of the biomass used when simmering food. Beans
are often simmered for hours. Hayboxes are very easy to make. Hay or straw
works well as insulation. This simple cooking method saves time and effort
for cooks. A Haybox can save more wood than using a modern cook stove, even
if the food is heated by an open fire! However, the combination of a modern
cook stove and Haybox results in safer, even more fuel-efficient cooking.

Responding to market desires is necessary

The outer appearance of a stove, whether it features a griddle, wok,
multiple pots, single pot, a comal, added water heater, baking oven, etc.,
can flexibly respond to the desires of cooks in a particular region. The
design principles and combustion characteristics stay the same and can
accommodate any sort of cooking, including baking and water heating. For
good reasons, cooks, who are mostly women, tend not to accept a stove if it
does not meet their needs.

Therefore, careful and thorough market research, surveys, and analysis must
proceed the design and manufacturing of a stove. Involving female cooks in
the design of a regional stove is a very good idea. Continuing maintenance
is much more likely if cooks care for and are involved in their stoves. User
groups who supply needed replacement parts may create a self-sustaining
beneficial influence. Users become very effective trainers, passing on their
familiarity with the new technology. The smooth transition to a new stove is
greatly assisted by training from female experts who know and like the new
technology.

The Aprovecho experience is that stove preferences may change from village
to village. In Honduras, towns fifty miles apart required very different
stoves! In one location wood was plentiful and women required clean pots,
kept away from soot. The other town was experiencing a wood shortage and a
stove that was as conserving as possible was requested. Teams of stove
promoters who do not respond to local needs may find their stove abandoned
after a short time.

Use of refractory materials

A stove will not last very long unless durable parts are used that can
withstand the heat generated by burning biomass. A lot of stoves develop
problems after a relatively short time period. The use of refractory
materials makes stoves that will last appreciably longer. If a stove will
not endure years of normal service, given regular maintenance, users may not
like the stove and revert back to the traditional open fire.

The transition to modern cooking stoves

Cooking stoves are a convenience that protects the health of the family and
one that helps to conserve the supply of biomass. Obtaining a stove may be
the most fundamental sign of improving conditions for a family. The research
and development of many disparate groups located all over the world have
accomplished a beneficial evolution in stove designs. Careful testing and
follow up studies pointed out the problems in the first generation of
improved cook stoves. The current generation will be improved by following
the same practice. Careful study of the performance of stoves over time is
important as is listening to improvements suggested by users.

Shared strategies in designing fuel efficient cooking stoves

The following pages show cooking stove designs from all around the globe.
The stoves share an improved strategy of convective heat transfer through
small gaps around the pot(s). Many of the stoves are either insulated or low
mass. A common design characteristic is sealing the stove body around the
top of the pot, diverting smoke into a chimney. Multiple pot stoves also
optimize heat transfer by forcing hot air to contact the sides as well as
the bottoms of the pots. The Rocket type stoves, invented by Dr. Larry
Winiarski, have an added feature, the L shaped, insulated combustion chamber
that increases combustion efficiency, reducing harmful emissions.

The diagrams are copied from the following books and articles:

Modern Stoves For All, Micuta, 1981. Pages 32, 41, 54
Woodburning Cookstoves, Prassad, Sanger, Visser, 1984. Pages 215, 222, 226
Biomass Stoves, Baldwin, 1987. Pages 29, 30, 71
Stove Images, Westhoff, Germann, 1995. Pages 87, 119, 123, 152
Cooking Food Safely and Efficiently With Fire, Still, 2000. Pages, 11, 12,
13, 9

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ZBihari at ormat.com Thu Sep 20 03:52:11 2001
From: ZBihari at ormat.com (Zoli Bihari)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Hay for fuel
Message-ID: <727CFCBBE1C3D41181FC005004201AA09FD783@ORMAT-NT>

 

 

Hi Richard and all,

Take a look at

http://www.jxj.com/suppands/renenerg/index.html

There you can find suppliers in your region.
Most of manufacturers are from The Netherlands, Denmark and the area.
You can take a look for their sites.
Search for DanTrim, MaskinFabrik, Combo GR etc.

Zoli

 

Zoli Bihari
R&D - Ormat Ltd. - Israel
Tel:   972 (8) 9433894
Fax:  972 (8) 9439901
E-mail: zbihari@ormat.com

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard & Faye [mailto:rifa@advertisnet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:56 PM
> To: stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Hay for fuel
>
>
> I have several greenhouses that I am thinking of heating with
> old round hay
> bales.  Moldy and not usable for the cattle.  I would like to
> make this a
> hot water system.  Does anyone know were I can get information about a
> product like this?
>
> Richard Salmons
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>

 

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Thu Sep 20 03:55:25 2001
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: sequestratioon of carbon
In-Reply-To: <4453040214.4021444530@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <000801c141ab$ca07b3c0$3f51c5cb@vsnl.net.in>

Dear Stovers,
Here is how the domestic cookstove in the third world can contribute to
carbon sequestration.
Use a charcoal making stove but use the energy of only the volatile part of
the biomass for cooking. The char should not be used as fuel but should be
thrown into a pit. In this way we take carbon out of circulation and give
it back to mother earth, replacing the coal extracted from her bowels. The
industrially advanced nations should pay for this activity, because the
housewife in the developing country would be contributing to carbon
sequestration.
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Tami Bond <Tami.Bond@noaa.gov>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 3:47 PM
Subject: GCC Talk V: Beyond Kyoto?

 

* MITIGATION: BEYOND KYOTO? *

(A large basket full of caveats and disclaimers is installed here. Take
several before you go on-- stock up! These are my thoughts, still in
progress, very open to discussion and debate! Also, I have no idea
about the nature of discussions that occur at COP-- possibly these very
ideas have been tried and rejected for reasons that may seem obvious to
politicos.)

Take the following facts, the first two from the table under
the "Greenhouse Gas" topic and the third from my (yet unpublished and
highly uncertain) work on emission inventories:
1. Residential stoves emit a large fraction of global burden of CO,
which has climate effects.
2. These stoves are responsible for a large fraction of the global
burden of NMVOCs, which have climate effects.
3. These stoves are responsible for a large fraction of the global
burden of black and organic carbon, which have climate effects. (I
won't commit to a value; it might be something like 25-50%.)
4. These stoves are responsible for only a small fraction of the global
burden of Kyoto-targeted GHGs.

In other words, the potentially biggest contribution from developing
countries-- and Stovers-- in mitigating climate change IS NOT COVERED
under the Kyoto Protocol. How could this be? Well, Kyoto has a narrow
focus on a few GHGs. That's fine, because it deals with commitments by
industrialized nations, for which the primary climate effects are
probably the listed GHGs; furthermore, the simplification was probably
necessary for this first round of negotiation. However, Kyoto has
provided no mechanism for addressing what may be the developing world's
*current* primary effects on climate.

[I suppose that one could nitpick Article 12 (which presents the CDM)
and argue that the "operational entities" engaged to examine emission
reductions would recognize the "real, measurable and long-term benefits
related to the mitigation of climate change" from stove improvements,
and therefore could go about certifying one sort of emission reduction
as a CO2-equivalent reduction. The workability could hang on those
unnamed entities, and having some idea of the stiffness of bureaucracy,
I have doubts that this path would work.]

Again, Kyoto is only the first step in a long path. I personally
believe that there could be large benefits from a next step that goes
beyond simple GHG reduction. This step should contemplate climate
change as a whole by allowing credit for reduction of aerosols and
gaseous PICs. Negotiating this credit is unlikely to be easy, but it
could be rewarding. With all due respect for the hard work that went
into the Kyoto agreement, it favors a potential world with low CO2 but
high CO and aerosol emissions, over a potential world in which fuel-use
is slightly higher but cleaner. The first scenario ends up with lower
GHG concentrations; the second may actually have fewer adverse climate
effects. The first scenario may exacerbate the inequities in developing
countries which have little to offer in the way of potential reductions
due to their low net CO2 emissions; the second might recognize
that "clean development" encompasses more than just reducing a few
GHGs.

A small group of people has been talking about an idea for targeting
black-carbon and methane emissions to slow warming
(http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/forcings/altscenario/). Using
modeled emission scenarios, they have suggested that it is possible to
realize a small additional climate forcing in the year 2050 by paying
attention to BC and CH4, while achieving smaller reductions in CO2 than
would otherwise be required. I will call this the "BC-offset" proposal.

What does that mean to stoves? Using a (VERY rough) GWP of 100 for
black carbon (BC, or soot), and assuming that 25% of the emitted
particles measured are BC, I calculate that the additional BC offset
for the Acacia-stove would result in a credit of $0.27 per stove. That
is not a lot of money, when compared to the rest of the credits.
However, the global-warming potential is quite dependent on the choice
of timeframe used to calculate GWP. For example, if one decides to
value BC on a 25-year timeframe instead of a 100-year timeframe, the
value of BC reductions increases relative to CO2 reductions. That's
because all the possible forcing by BC still occurs within the 25
years. I believe the BC-offset proposal is looking at timeframes
shorter than 100 years.

The BC-offset proposal has a strong advantage: a very good way to
reduce BC is probably to address millions of small, relatively
inexpensive, but highly polluting sources (i.e. stoves, small industry,
and out-of-tune vehicles). These changes could be very beneficial to
public health and regional air quality.

The proposal also has several strikes against it:
1. If cuts are made to BC only, and not to CO2, we will still
accumulate atmospheric GHGs, and might be stuck with the need for quick
reductions that I described earlier.
2. Any attempt at equating BC and CO2 emissions must rely on model
results to estimate the effects of BC. Since BC participates in a large
number of climate feedbacks, the discussion could degenerate into
debate about whose model is better and what long-term experiments need
to be done to assess BC forcing.
3. Radiative forcing by aerosols is dissimilar from radiative forcing
by GHGs, as discussed previously. Although BC produces a net positive
forcing at TOA, it causes *negative* forcing at the surface. Reducing
BC emissions would actually increase radiative flux at the ground. The
simplistic notion of regulating net TOA forcing may not result in
maximum amelioration of climate change.
4. The possibility of reducing BC alone is physically questionable.
Organic carbon and fly ash do not absorb light, and cool the climate
instead of warming it. Since they are emitted along with BC, any
control is likely to reduce these species as well. The result could be
a net zero change in forcing at TOA.
5. It is ethically questionable to cut BC only, when many other
combustion products (organic carbon, sulfates) also have severe health
effects. Reducing BC alone would entail a *partial* intervention into
some serious health problems, when a much more complete intervention
could be possible for a small incremental cost.

[Aside, a view from Tami's Dream World: I envision developing countries
getting credit for reductions in particles *of any type*, stacked
against industrialized countries reducing GHGs. This would occur
without undue dependence on model results, without belief that any one
action can truly offset another inaction, and with a modicum of faith
that reduction in anthropogenic footprint will yield both immediate and
long-term benefits-- in sum, without the tit-for-tat bickering that is
probably inseparable from the agreement process.]

Given the near-zero probability that Tami's Dream World exists, in what
ways could similar effects be achieved? In what follows, I will ask
three questions about the Kyoto CDM. I do not mean to be arrogant by
suggesting modifications to Kyoto; I know that hundreds of people have
worked on it, and that no alterations will ever be simple. However,
having delivered several criticisms of the current and proposed
mechanisms, I feel obligated to attempt some constructive suggestions
as well. These have not been thoroughly examined, and need to be
roundly criticized by as many people as possible.

1. What would happen if the CDM allowed reductions in additional gases
to count as GHG-equivalent emission reductions? These would include CO
and NMVOCs (with additional speciation required-- at least by chemical
functional group).
- A major contribution to GCC (PICs from low-technology combustion)
would be more adequately assessed.
- The stove-improvement credit might be increased to a value that
facilitates dissemination.
- Reducing GHG-relevant emissions would fall directly in line with
reducing health-relevant emissions, diminishing the number of "false
choices" between GCC amelioration and public-health improvements.
- Developing countries could either benefit through the CDM, or could
have a chance to join climate accords by committing to GCC mitigation
strategies that are more technically and economically feasible than CO2
reductions. This, in turn, could be an answer to the complaint that
developing countries are not participating in climate accords.
- GWPs for several PICs would have to be agreed upon. This process
would rely on models with high uncertainty, and that uncertainty would
have to be accepted for the sake of progress.

2. What would happen if aerosols were recognized as major climate-
forcing agents, and a mechanism were provided to quantify a "GCP"
(global change potential) analogous to GWP, allowable as credit toward
GHG reduction targets? This would require agreement that undesirable
climate interference may result from *either* reductions or increases
in the radiative balance at the TOA, at the ground, and within the
atmosphere itself. The GCP might be a very simple weighted average of
these effects.
- A major contribution of low-technology combustion to GCC and regional
climate change would be more adequately assessed.
- Again, the stove-improvement credit might be increased further,
reducing GCC-relevant emissions would fall directly in line with
reducing health-relevant emissions, and developing countries could
benefit in more than one way.
- This will be a contentious issue, as no "apples-apples" comparison
between GHGs and aerosols will be possible. There will be no true
offsetting, but again, progress will require acceptance of uncertainty,
and a willingness to let go of fencing with models after a certain
amount of discussion.

3. What would happen if current differences between developed and
developing countries were represented by assigning tiered GCP time-
frames for calculating emission-reduction credits? [For example, an
industrialized country could accomplish reductions of aerosol emissions
in a developing country, and receive credit for those reductions
compared to CO2 on a 100-year time-frame. However, if the developing
country itself undertook those reductions, it might receive credits
compared to CO2 on a 10-year time-frame.]
- This mechanism would be intended to provide an entry point for
developing countries into climate accords, allowing them relatively
higher credit for addressing their more immediate, but still climate-
relevant, problems.
- Industrialized countries would be encouraged to act with a long-term
view.
- The "economies in transition" could be assigned intermediate time-
frames.
- The appropriate GCP timeframe would have to be reanalyzed
periodically for each country. Assignment and later adjustment of time-
frames will probably be a very contentious issue. Perhaps these could
be tied to fixed economic or development indicators.
- It is possible that this mechanism would cause a shift of emission-
intensive industries into countries with lower assigned time-frames.
However, the same argument is currently applied to the Kyoto Protocol,
which does not address emissions from developing countries at all.

Again-- this section in particular is laden with opinions, with very
little injection of policy-reality.

The end, at last!!

~Tami

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Thu Sep 20 03:56:21 2001
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Burning briquettes through a central single hole
In-Reply-To: <00c201c13dac$b21b7e20$50e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <000901c141ab$ce060a80$3f51c5cb@vsnl.net.in>

Dear Stanley and Crispin,
I sympathise with you because of your frustration with funding agencies,
becasue I too have many research ideas which are lying untested due to lack
of funding. However, as far as the stoves are concerned, we were lucky to
get financial support from our Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources
(in spite of the fact that wood and biomass are the most conventional of
energy sources). The funding was very little in comparison to the benefit to
the society. We have six designs of mud stoves (singlepot/double pot, with
chimney/without chimney, with grate/without grate, etc.), all having boiling
and evaporation efficiency of 25% and more, so that they guarantee 50% fuel
saving. We have evolved molds for them, so that they can be mass produced
without any change in their dimensions. We have recently introduced the
same models, made by using cement concrete, so that the durability has
increased to about 5 years. About 50 potters trained by us are collectively
selling anually about 150,000 of these stoves in our state (Maharashtra,
India) and collectively earning (gross income) annually about Rs.25 million
(about half a million US$). Many of them have their children attending
colleges, thanks to the extra money earned (needless to say that the
children would not be making and selling mud stoves).
We have also been able to sell the char from sugarcane leaves without any
difficulty, and several persons have now been trained by us in this
technology too.
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Stanley <rstanley@legacyfound.org>
To: Crispin <crispin@newdawn.sz>
Cc: Stoves <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Burning briquettes through a central single hole

> Crispin,
>
> Buring through the hole only is also not as efficient as lettign some air
> around teh annular space ?.5" between the briquette and the stove wall. We
> prooved this again with Larry Winarski recently. Our burn profile is a
rather
> quick rise to 800 deg.centegrade (within 5 to 10 minutes holding for 10 to
20
> minutes (depending on composition and quality), then dropping back to
glowing
> coals with an effective temp of 200 and gradually down to 100
deg.Centigrade
> over the remaining 20 to 30 minutes---as measured at the same point (8 to
10
> inches inches above the briquette proper). the coals are indeed very much
> hotter but unlike the licking flame stage , the heat of the glowing embers
is
> only realised close onto them. We have found that adjusting the pot to
shift it
> closer to the heat is not worth the effort for household cooking because,
1)
> (per your same reason for cooking), the drop in temp at the pot is
suitable for
> cooking and 2) the stove would have to become a good deal more complicated
and
> fragile and expensive.
>
> I think that the sawdust briquete/stove would also taper off to coals in
time ,
> no ?
>
> Ref your earlier concern about just going out and gettgin on with your
stove
> work, I suffer the same frustaration about getting funding for my work and
have
> resolved to just go for it as well--this time in southern Mexico/ Northern
> Guatemala. People will leach your ideas all day long but when it comes to
> getting funded especialy out of the states for work in development, they
> disappear like the wind. Invite those who are encouraging you from the
> sidelines to raise funds for you on a contingency basis, ie., they write
the
> grant and they get a percentage as the grantwriter/ fundraiser and they
will
> disappear even faster. I agree with you fully just go out and do it then
> everybody will come in to follow and perhaps lend real support . You just
hope
> this will happen before others rip you off !
> If I hadn't been doing this for the past 34 years with some success and
real
> encouragement in the actual development environment with those who really
need
> the assistance, I would have given up a long time ago.
>
> Aluta continua.
>
> Richard Stanley
> here is a reference to our article which details the mentioned burning
profile
> for our single hole briquettes.
>
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/mcdoug/mcdoug_0201.html
>
>
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 04:00:44 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: GCC Talk III: Aerosols
In-Reply-To: <439dd433f8.433f8439dd@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <009201c14188$6c6faba0$c7b26441@computer>

Hi again:
<snip>

>"Third, the spatial patterns of aerosols are quite different than those
of GHGs, because of their short atmospheric lifetimes. That's why I
put "counteract" in quotes above. While GHGs are fairly well mixed,
aerosols and their associated forcing are concentrated around source
regions. Global-mean TOA forcing is about +1.5 W/m2 for CO2, and -0.4
W/m2 for sulfate. Compare those numbers with recent measurements of
aerosol forcing in the plume from the Indian subcontinent: -20 to -30
W/m2! Immediately obvious: (1) the standard idea of global-mean forcing
can't represent that situation adequately; (2) there must be some
pretty strong effects on regional climate, also. "

(RWL-1) How is this number of "-20 to -30 W/m2" obtained"
<snip>

"For black and organic carbon, the biggest uncertainty-- and possibly,
the biggest contribution-- is spelled S-T-O-V-E-S. What are the
emission factors? How much of the emitted mass is light-absorbing
carbon? What else is in those particles? There are plenty of non-stove
questions, too: What are emissions from blast furnaces if the top gas
is not captured and re-used? What is the fraction of "upset events" in
oil-burning boilers?

According to IPCC documents, GHG forcing is fairly well known; our
understanding of sulfate aerosol forcing is "low"; and our
understanding of black and organic carbon is "very low". We need to
know more, and that includes something about stoves."

(RWL-2) I am impressed that "SO-T-O-V-E-S" is spelled in caps. The
negative sign in this bothers me It seems to say black carbon soot is a
good thing from a GCC perspective. But later you (and James Hansen) imply
a positive sign. ??

Ron

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 04:01:33 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: GCC Talk IV: Kyoto
In-Reply-To: <428b2452dd.452dd428b2@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <009301c14188$6d8d0280$c7b26441@computer>

Hi on #4

<snip>

>"What's in it for Stovers? The Kyoto Protocol contains language that
allows developed countries to undertake emission reductions in
developing countries, and count those reductions toward what they need
to achieve: the "clean development mechanism" (CDM). Could any of those
reductions provide a financial mechanism to disseminate improved stoves?

Kyoto addresses only six GHGs (or categories thereof), and only three
of those might be relevant to Stovers. Those are CO2, N2O, and CH4--
the other three being gases emitted from industrial processes. It
doesn't address CO, or NMVOCs (non-methane volatile organic compounds),
although they do have climate effects.

Since biomass is considered "CO2-neutral", there are no CO2 credits to
be gained from reducing its use, *unless* one can argue that there is
net reforestation when the fuel is not burned. The stove-improvement
program itself would not qualify as a CDM. One would have to argue the
existence of-- and probably quantify-- a new CO2 sink in the country of
interest. I suspect that this would be difficult to prove, and even
harder to uphold as populations increase.

Switching from fossil fuels to biomass (or other renewables) would
displace net CO2 emission. That transition is unlikely at the level of
individual stove users, given the energy ladder and current
perceptions. Any fuel switch TO biomass would probably have to be a
community-level or larger project.

I took an example from Kirk Smith's work to calculate a possible credit
for stove improvements based on the PICs alone. (I'm sure that he
and/or Dan Kammen have done this calculation much more accurately than
I have; and remember, this is just one example.) I randomly chose
the "Acacia-traditional mud" stove from his report and calculated the
potential value of removing *all* PICs from that stove. That is a long
shot, considering that some of the improved stoves he tested had
*higher* emissions than the unimproved stoves. Here, I'm hoping that
future programs will improve. I translated the total emissions to
carbon equivalents using the stated GWPs for each compound. My
assumptions were: 3 MJ use/day (can anyone comment on that?), 5-year
stove lifetime (optimistic), $20/tonne carbon avoided (another number
open for comment). For the Kyoto-targeted GHGs, CH4 and N2O, the
avoided carbon-equivalent was 60 kg C equivalent per stove, or $1.20
credit per stove. Is that enough to make a difference in funding
dissemination?

Next, if we include *all* greenhouse-active compounds, and not just the
Kyoto-targeted ones, I calculate that about 270 kg of carbon-equivalent
would be avoided over the stove's lifetime. At $20/tonne, the credit
rises to about $5.40 per stove. Now it becomes apparent that the stove
credit ought to be higher than Kyoto allows it to be-- so Kyoto is
(probably unintentionally) biased against low-technology combustion.

This paints a bleak picture of CDM for stoves under Kyoto (I repeat,
though, that I'm not well versed in these topics). To continue-- and
there IS somewhere to go-- we have add a giant leap. "

(RWL-1) This above was very very helpful. On your first question above on
3MJ/day energy use, I believe this is a bit low

We have been using a number near 15 MJ/kg (for wood - twice that for
charcoal) so you are assuming 0.2 kg/day. This is a number used a few
times - but for a single meal I think, with a super-efficient maybe small
stove. I will look this up on some other charts - but think the number
might be off by a considerable factor - maybe per capita? Anyone have a
best kg/day stove number to throw in? Obviously this is a very key
parameter.

(RWL-2) Could you give us all the numbers that make up the 60 kg and 270
kg values above? Even at .2 kg per day, there should be at least 365 kg of
wood over 5 years - and this gives only about 16% carbon - too low, I think.

(RWL-3) But if we have only $1.20 - I think that still make a pretty good
difference - and you (almost - need more background numbers) convinced me on
the $5.40 value(as a minimum).. I am sending separately a reference to a
report on stove program evaluation in India showing stove subsidy costs not
much more. Your numbers only deal with GCC - and we can add health cost
impacts as well.

Ron

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 04:02:33 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: GCC Talk II: Measures, Greenhouse gases
In-Reply-To: <44b0841512.4151244b08@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <009401c14188$6f50ab80$c7b26441@computer>

 

(HELP MESSAGE TO ANYONE - i HAVE LOST MY CAPABILITY TO HAVE THE AUTOMATIC
INSERTING OF ">" - CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO GET IT BACK? - IN OUTLOOK
EXPRESS)

Hi Tami:

Thanks for your 5 messages - really a great contribution - because all
were targeted to stoves issues. Below I want to better understand a few
details (none on #1).

>"Kirk Smith has pointed out that biofuel burning is only GHG-neutral if
the combustion is complete, because the GWP of many PICs is greater
than the GWP of CO2. In other words, if you take a molecule of carbon
dioxide, fix it in a tree, and then use a cruddy stove to turn it into
a molecule of methane that is going to absorb more radiation than a CO2
molecule, you *have* actually contributed to GCC. Kirk Smith's work
shows that if you count CO and NMVOCs, cooking over kerosene actually
adds less to the global warming effect than cooking over biomass-even
if the biomass is sustainably harvested. The same is true of the
charcoal cycle. "

(RWL -1): Could you give us the Smith reference you are using here -
and if there is more than oneon GCC, provide those also.

>"The EDGAR web site (http://www.rivm.nl/env/int/coredata/edgar/) gives
information about greenhouse gas emissions. From this site, I extract
the following table based on 1990 data. Teragrams (Tg) is a unit that
some emission people like to use and is the same as Mtonne. "NMVOC"
is "non-methane volatile organic compounds". Residential use probably
comes from the International Energy Agency's (IEA) "Residential" fuel-
use category, which includes stoves but also natural-gas furnaces in
the U.S., apartment-building boilers, and so on. Therefore, the
fraction of residential emissions might be an upper bound on the stove-
contribution to global emissions.

Gas Total (Tg) Residential (Tg) Fraction residential
CH4 320 17.1 5% *
N2O 0.005 0.0001 2%
NOx 0.10 0.007 7%
SO2 148 0.01 0%
CO 974 218 22% *
NMVOC 177 32 18% *
* "Biomass" (open-field or forest-clearing) burning is also a large
contributor and is not included in the residential totals."

(RWL-2) - I believe I found the detailed files from which you obtained this
data. Quite fascinating - with the largest numbers I found for CO coming
from Calcutta and Bombay - they stand out dramatically.if you know where to
look
(Long, Lat = 88,22 and 72,18). However, I found two files B40 and F40 with
residential data that wasn't yours. Could you show how you found the
numbers 974 and 218 above? (To others, there are 15 files for the man-made
production from each category - industrial, transportation, etc - but two
residential categories.)

(RWL-3) I am especially interested in knowing more about the GCC impact of
charcoal production. Is this contained in your last table line labeled:
"*".? Can you do a few computations to show how much in this category
might be related to stoves?

>"Values for global emissions are usually derived by multiplying total
fuel use for each kind of combustion by some emission factor. For CO2,
this procedure is relatively easy, because one can assume complete
combustion-at worst, that will overestimate emissions by a few percent.
For PICs, however, the combustion process determines the emission
factor. Unless one has a fairly wide range of measurements of the
poorest combustion (highest-emitting categories), emission inventories
are quite uncertain. Before commenting on any of the values above, I'd
want to know the details of the calculations. For example, what are the
emission factors used, and how variable are they? How were blanket IEA
categories such as "Residential" broken down into combustion practices--
or were they? So, take those totals as nothing more than a first-order
estimate (or ask the people who did them for uncertainties)."

(RWL-4) Can you give us some more leads on how to answer these important
questions? It sound like some of the data should be based on your own lab
work. Is that the intent? Does your own lab work seem to hang together
with these numbers (or is your work not related at all to the items in the
table above?)

<snip>

More coming on your #III-V

Ron.

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 04:03:48 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: GCC Talk V: Beyond Kyoto?
In-Reply-To: <4453040214.4021444530@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <009501c14188$70ba4da0$c7b26441@computer>

Tami - This was the "heaviest" reading. I need more time.

But I wanted to comment on two paragraphs.

<snip>

>"A small group of people has been talking about an idea for targeting
black-carbon and methane emissions to slow warming
(http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/forcings/altscenario/). Using
modeled emission scenarios, they have suggested that it is possible to
realize a small additional climate forcing in the year 2050 by paying
attention to BC and CH4, while achieving smaller reductions in CO2 than
would otherwise be required. I will call this the "BC-offset" proposal.

What does that mean to stoves? Using a (VERY rough) GWP of 100 for
black carbon (BC, or soot), and assuming that 25% of the emitted
particles measured are BC, I calculate that the additional BC offset
for the Acacia-stove would result in a credit of $0.27 per stove. That
is not a lot of money, when compared to the rest of the credits.
However, the global-warming potential is quite dependent on the choice
of timeframe used to calculate GWP. For example, if one decides to
value BC on a 25-year timeframe instead of a 100-year timeframe, the
value of BC reductions increases relative to CO2 reductions. That's
because all the possible forcing by BC still occurs within the 25
years. I believe the BC-offset proposal is looking at timeframes
shorter than 100 years."

(RWL)- I checked out the NASA-Goddard paper and it seems to make sense.
James Hansen is certainly well known. Have there been others who agree? I
have been worried that we had no possibility of changing things at COM7.
Have you any idea whether Hansen is pushing for these changes? Is there any
other political influence to help get stoves-type emissions and
characteristics more in front of policy circles?

Again Tami - Thanks very much for a great introduction to the interface
between stoves and GCC (and the COM7 possibilities). I owe you more serious
questions on this last "Talk." (And I need to do some more research on some
other questions early.)

Ron

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Thu Sep 20 05:18:42 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships,
In-Reply-To: <001b01c140e7$ac2c6c20$52e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <002f01c141b4$3124d260$027c27c4@jmdavies>

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Crispin <crispin@newdawn.sz>
To: Stoves <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:46 AM
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, 'forced' air water heater, and
shapes

> >a tin which could be prepared in different ways to
> >produce hot smokeless coals.
>
> I want to draw a distinction between what John described and the Mbaula
> which is being promoted in Midrand. The Mbaula has three parts and the
bolo
> (if we can agree to call it that) is a can (usually 20 litres) with holes
> punched in it.

Very interesting, I would appear that the common term for this " non
specific combustion container" has been applied to a commercial product.

> I am very interested to hear about the mass of the coal usually loaded
into
> the bolo by an ordinary family cooking an ordinary meal. The viability of
a
> biomass fuel competing against the coal has to be on the basis of cost.
The
> bolo is extremely wasteful of heat, but that heat is cheap-cheap. What is
> actually spent cooking a meal? Can biomass offer a better 'deal'?

This all depends on the cost of the biomass. If one assumes firewood, then
the cost would be higher than Anthracite. It sells for about the same price,
but has about half the heat value.

Assuming the local coal has both 20 % ash and volatiles. this would leave
60% carbon. assuming 5% of this was lost in the preburn, leaving 55%. then
the cost of the useful heat becomes of the potential heat
But by doing the burn entirely in the house, would decrease the cost
depending on the heat lost to the chimney. one may assume that this coal has
a heat value of 21 MJ / Kg. and a cost of R0.21 / kg.

Firewood costs units with half the potential heat,
Firewood however has about 75 % volatiles. Assumed heat value 12 MJ / kg. at
a cost of R 0.46 / Kg.

Assuming a 20% loss to the chimney of the volatile component after which it
is not needed, with coal as the standard of X heat units, we see the
following. The chimney is used during the volatile burn off as smoke could
be emitted.

Coal with outside burn off. 0.21 / ( 21 * 0.55 ) = R0. 018 / MJ

Coal with 20% volatiles to chimney. 0.21 / ( 21 * 0.76 ) = R0.013 / MJ.

Wood with 20% volatiles to chimney. 0.46 / ( 12 * 0.85 ) = R 0.045 / MJ

Wood with no heat loss. 0.46 / 12 = R 0.038 / MJ

Summing up the best case with fire wood is double the cost of the worst case
with cheap coal.

If one had to do the same exercise in timber producing areas, I would
presume the opposite result.
The biggest cost in all cases is transport.

> The ideal coal for
> 'smokeless' burning comes from Newcastle about 3 hours south of here.
That
> is not available in Secunda as far as I know.

The Newcastle coal is low in volatiles ( Anthracite ) and lower in ash. This
costs R37 against R17 for the local product. Also about 3 hours journey from
here.

> Cooking over 'heating' coal is a smelly task. The food picks up the
flavour
> of the sulphur..................
> Once the volatiles are burned off and there remains a hot bed of burning
> lumps, ........... No one will cook on the fire until the smoke has gone
......

> The suggestions about lighting it at the top and burning down are only
going
> to be implemented if there is no smell from the coals as they cook.

On the one test that I did with top lighting with coal, It was found that
the volatiles flame was roughly in proportion to the volatile content, for
equal heat output rate, from each phase of burning. The coal gave a much
shorter volatile burn. But the necessary operation of adjusting the air
flows
would not endear this system to the target group. Such a system with
automatic air control would be ideal for the affluent population, who can
afford the technology and prefer a constant heat output.

I fully agree with Crispin's views. bottom burn gives the best sulphur
removal, It is the simplest and easiest method. Adapting the BOLO * to give
a reasonably clean initial burn, will allow this to be done in the house
under a chimney. Capturing most of the wasted heat in the house. In the
summer we have the opposite where the house is stifling hot without a fire.
In this case, an outside operation will be preferred. But in both cases,
smoke pollution would be vastly reduced.

* I think that we can accept this as an Westernised name for the Mbaula, but
the proper name should not be forgotten, many do not recognise the name
BOLO.

Whether coal or bio-mass is used the methods would be the same, just the air
porting would be slightly different for the different gas composition, and
the fire bed area and depth would be roughly in proportion to the heat
value of the fuel. The bottom burn also allows fuel to be added in small
quantities as required. This would not be done with coal while cooking, but
the longer burn of the coke should eliminate this need.

> Ron says: 'You are describing a very poor method of
> >using coal, I am pretty sure.
>
> It is nothing less than a calamity. The pollution from the partially
burned
> volatiles has to be seen to be believed. It looks like a huge grass fire
in
> the area each morning and evening. Even on the highway driving by my eyes
> sting and breathing is difficult inside the pickup truck.

Crisping has described this perfectly,

> I was putting together the 9-per-time briqueting machine today. Hopefully
> you can see the output in a week or so.

Wishing you well with your trials.

Regards,
John Davies.

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in Thu Sep 20 08:00:25 2001
From: adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Needed research
In-Reply-To: <131.1aba83c.28d7119a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c141cd$c4753000$d250c5cb@vsnl.net.in>

Dear Vernon,
we too are working on stove designs that would provide secondary air to the burning biomass, without having to use a blower. From that point of view, we are interested in knowing even about your failures, so that we avoid making the same mistakes. One of our failures consisted of introducing into the stove firebox a set of tubes, which were supposed to draw outside air and introduce it into the flame. We expected this device to make use of the ventury effect of the air current going from the grate towards the pot. The air of course had no intention of doing anything of this sort.
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: VHarris001@aol.com
To: Stoves@crest.org ; gasification@crest.org
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Needed research

In a message dated 09/16/2001 10:27:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ronallarson@qwest.net writes:

 

I strongly agree with Tom that we need to find ways to better mix the secondary air and pyrolysis gases under natural convection conditions. I have unsuccessfully tried a few geometries to achieve mixing before ignition. Messages from Alex English may provide some leads. (Alex? Tom?)

There is another set of ideas that we could follow relative to blowers. Your University staff that is skilled in electronics can perhaps find ways to get low cost variability - and couple with PV cells or thermoelectrics (or several other strictly mechanical approaches mentioned last April by Andrew Heggie). The issues of blowers and charcoal-making should be kept separate - one can possibly do a better job at charcoal-making with blowers. I think you have concluded that natural convection is more appropriate in remote areas and you may be right. But this needs more research.

 

Don't forget to add pulse combustion to the list of items needing research. Although the operation of pulse combustors is not well understood - even by experts in the field - they do appear to have many benefits to offer the development of stoves. They can provide vacuum to draw gas through a negative pressure gasifier stage, they can burn ash and tar laden woodgas, they generate copious heat, and they provide exhaust pressure which can be used both to increase heat transfer rates and pump exhaust out of a vent tube - eliminating the need for a natural draft chimney.

The down side is that they can be difficult to start, and they will require silencing that can not be disabled. These problems may require a high-tech design program to achieve a solution - particularly if a valveless pulse combustor is to be developed. But once optimized, a pulse combustor seems like it might be an ideal solution to the stoves problem - a combined blower and burner with no moving parts.

More information can be found by doing a search for "pulse combustion" on one of the search engines or at www.uspto.gov. If I find more relavant information about pulse combustion and stoves, I'll post it here. In the meantime, if any one else has more comments (and particularly helpful are considered criticisms) about them, please don't hesitate to share it here.

Vernon Harris

 

From k.prasad at tue.nl Thu Sep 20 09:03:28 2001
From: k.prasad at tue.nl (K.Prasad)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Needed research
Message-ID: <200109201259.f8KCxAF07216@mailhost.tue.nl>

Dear Priyadarshini and other stovers

Our group did also some work on the influence of secondary air while we
were active on the woodstove scene in the eighties. No blowers were used.
Check our website
<www.cookstove.net>

Prasad
----------
From: A.D. Karve <adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>
To: VHarris001@aol.com
Cc: stoves@crest.org
Subject: Re: Needed research
Date: donderdag 20 september 2001 10:28

Dear Vernon,
we too are working on stove designs that would provide secondary air to
the burning biomass, without having to use a blower. From that point of
view, we are interested in knowing even about your failures, so that we
avoid making the same mistakes. One of our failures consisted of
introducing into the stove firebox a set of tubes, which were supposed
to draw outside air and introduce it into the flame. We expected this
device to make use of the ventury effect of the air current going from
the grate towards the pot. The air of course had no intention of doing
anything of this sort.
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: VHarris001@aol.com <mailto:VHarris001@aol.com>
To: Stoves@crest.org <mailto:Stoves@crest.org> ; gasification@crest.org
<mailto:gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Needed research

In a message dated 09/16/2001 10:27:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ronallarson@qwest.net <mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net> writes:

 

I strongly agree with Tom that we need to find ways to better mix the
secondary air and pyrolysis gases under natural convection conditions.
I have unsuccessfully tried a few geometries to achieve mixing before
ignition. Messages from Alex English may provide some leads. (Alex?
Tom?)

There is another set of ideas that we could follow relative to
blowers. Your University staff that is skilled in electronics can
perhaps find ways to get low cost variability - and couple with PV cells
or thermoelectrics (or several other strictly mechanical approaches
mentioned last April by Andrew Heggie). The issues of blowers and
charcoal-making should be kept separate - one can possibly do a better
job at charcoal-making with blowers. I think you have concluded that
natural convection is more appropriate in remote areas and you may be
right. But this needs more research.

 

Don't forget to add pulse combustion to the list of items needing
research. Although the operation of pulse combustors is not well
understood - even by experts in the field - they do appear to have many
benefits to offer the development of stoves. They can provide vacuum to
draw gas through a negative pressure gasifier stage, they can burn ash
and tar laden woodgas, they generate copious heat, and they provide
exhaust pressure which can be used both to increase heat transfer rates
and pump exhaust out of a vent tube - eliminating the need for a natural
draft chimney.

The down side is that they can be difficult to start, and they will
require silencing that can not be disabled. These problems may require
a high-tech design program to achieve a solution - particularly if a
valveless pulse combustor is to be developed. But once optimized, a
pulse combustor seems like it might be an ideal solution to the stoves
problem - a combined blower and burner with no moving parts.

More information can be found by doing a search for "pulse combustion"
on one of the search engines or at www.uspto.gov. If I find more
relavant information about pulse combustion and stoves, I'll post it
here. In the meantime, if any one else has more comments (and
particularly helpful are considered criticisms) about them, please don't
hesitate to share it here.

Vernon Harris

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Thu Sep 20 10:16:57 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: sequestratioon of carbon, for use
Message-ID: <15e.12ba8c8.28db5355@aol.com>

Tami,
You make a very good point about sequestration of CO2. Lets look at it
another way. Any biomass taken out of the decomposition cycle, weather from
the actual slow natural decay, or wildfire, is not a net greenhouse gas gain
to the atmosphere when used for energy source. The advantage of clean burning
Vs slow decay is the lessening of methane and particulate emissions in
exchange for CO2 emissions. From what I understand, this is a 21 to 1
advantage in less greenhouse effect.
On the other hand, any biomass energy that replaces coal, oil, or natural
gas in that order of carbon content, is a net loss of additional destructive
greenhouse gas to the current system. I will suggest that charcoal can be
stored in stable coal mines with the assumption that if we produce enough we
can actually put the carbon back from where it came, yet still have it in
accessible storage for a rainy day such as an atmospheric disruption.
There are other factors to keep in mind. Why should we bury charcoal, the
cleanest burning biomass, only to dig more coal somewhere else? The digging
is a direct assault on the environment of the highest magnitude. One only has
to travel a hundred miles east from my home to witness thousands of square
miles of what was once 1x logged forest, or even in some cases pristine old
growth, completely destroyed 200 ft. down into the earth. Then another
hundred miles south and east, you see extensive mountaintop removal, the
absolutely worst destruction, of the most beautiful land, ever by man.
Once we dig the coal at net energy expense (have you ever witnessed the
energy expended to dig rock)? Then we transport it great distances at more
energy expense. It sits in piles leaching pollution into the environment.
Finally it is burned with the emission of everything from sulfur and
nitrogen, to heavy metals and radon gas.
If we could just harness the energy of some of the millions of acres of
timber that go up in smoke every year from unnatural management of land, we
could replace a great deal of this coal, while reducing the emissions from
the fires. What is the figure for lost board feet of timber? We can add to
this equation, the expenditure in man days, resources, and lives wasted,
fighting fires.
Around here in Ohio, nearly every farmer burns off a semi load or more
of brush and low grade firewood yearly. Common practice now with the EPA
complaints about burning, is to doze it into a ravine. This destroys the
land, and the methane emitted is worse than burning.
I am working on a devise that would be useable for the common farmer to
derive extra income in the off season, by clean converting waste to charcoal.
I believe the devises can be rented through rental stores and the charcoal
picked up for distribution there as well. If the market price for charcoal is
down, the farmer will have the option of burning the char himself or storing
it outside, damp and safe from accidental ignition.
It would make my day to see barge loads of clean produced charcoal,
heading down the Ohio River to mix with and reduce the amount of coal burned
in power plants, cleaning up some emissions. The farm economy would have one
more prop to keep the bills paid in times of low crop prices and high fuel
prices.
I don't think the farmers would care what their income per hour was if it
raised some cash while managing a land use problem. They waste that much time
making and watching fires anyhow. Charcoal stores outdoors indefinitely, so
a farmers wealth would be measured by the size of his charcoal pile while
waiting for a peak market price. Charcoal could be traded like grain now is,
for other agriculture products, such as food for the family and animals.
Any jobs lost in the mines would be replaced by jobs created by the
additional farm income, and handling the char. The charcoal devises would
advance in technology. Small generators operating off the waste heat could
contribute to the farmers power grid at times of peak usage, such as grain
drying, ventilation of barns, and welding shop work. Also don't count out
battery powered tractors recharging on solar, wind, and biomass energy. How
much diesel would this save? Add the cost of transporting the diesel to the
farm. Rotating batteries could run them indefinitely.
Has anyone thought of these things? Even old straw and corncobs could be
thrown in with the brush, adding greatly to the supply of biomass, WITHOUT
transportation cost, until the energy is dry and concentrated to char.
When one looks at the practicality of all improved biomass fuels,
charcoal comes out a winner every time. It can be packaged and stored
indefinately, even converted to gas or liquid. Why is there no significant
market for it here yet?
Daniel Dimiduk
Shangri-La Research and
Development
Dayton, Ohio,
USA

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Thu Sep 20 10:40:05 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Burning briquettes through a central single hole
Message-ID: <108.5ce0ccf.28db58a7@aol.com>

If you mix some clean, refractory type clay with the cement, you will
extend the life of your stoves even more, blastfurnace morter is made this
way. Consider using broken refractory grade brick as your aggregate, and tell
me how long that lasts. Also experiment with a small amount of carbon, such
as charcoal dust in the mix. Blast furnaces hearths hit tempratures of 5000
degrees F, are beaten up with dumped iron ore and coke, and the linings
commonly last 7-10 years.
Experiment with varying amounts, but keep track of the mix used, it may
be a while before someone reports breakage. Maybe code the mixes and scratch
the percentage number on the stove. Offer a guarentee with the experimental
stoves, and they will surley come back to you for examination. Just remember
to fire the stove slowly the first time like pottery before it is sold. Sell
it as a pre-tested stove.
Daniel Dimiduk
Shangri-La Reasearch and Development
Co.
Dayton, Ohio, USA

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Thu Sep 20 11:10:46 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: GCC Talk III: Aerosols
Message-ID: <c4.1afb31d9.28db5fdb@aol.com>

Ron,
Just a quick note from: The Making Shaping and Treating of Steel.
copyright 1964
Blast furnace Gas constituents percent by volume(dry basis)
CO2- 11.5
N2- 60
CO- 27.5
H2- 1.0
other info
specific Gravity- 1.02
air required for combustion- .68 cu ft.
heating value btu./cu ft.-92
theoretical flame temp- 2650 F
This does not give particulate amounts
In another section I find this:
top gas output,
63,500scf. or 4921 lb
moisture@ 3,300scf.or 157 lb
dust @44lb.

All per ton of hot metal, Maybe this helps?

Daniel Dimiduk
Shangri-La Research and Development Co.
Dayton, Ohio, USA

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Thu Sep 20 13:34:13 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: CO2 capturing and greenhouses
Message-ID: <82.105967dc.28db8192@aol.com>

Dear Dave:
I have been studying just this for some time. The problems with the flue
gasses are as follows. 1. sulfur and nitrogen compounds which produce acid
rain, produce acid moisture on the plant leaves causing instant death with
some plants at times, and damage at minimum. 2. I don't want to eat heavy
metals with my vegetables, but if clean biomass is used for fuel, no problem.
3. suspended particulate and condensates cloud glazing reducing light. 4. Any
tar at all can be deadly for some plants. 4. Greenhouse must be flushed
everyday with clean air before entering to eliminate CO. 5. I'm not sure of
long term effects of CO on plants. In the short term at least the plants I
have exposed (usually accidentally) do not show damage. This needs extensive
study.
I do not write off using flue CO2 at all, but it must be from a clean
source, very low CO, Diluted with at least 50% air, and thoroughly scrubbed
of tars and acids. There is a possibility of using the irrigation water to
scrub acids. They, if balanced would add to the fertilizer mix.
My greenhouse uses the exhaust from internally vented propane heaters,
mixed with clean hot air from a gasifiing woodstove heat exchanger. The
propane heat levels off the temperature with a non-electrical thermostat. I
have not measured, but I am sure I have achieved high levels of CO2
overnight, saturated into the soil(media) and converted to excess O2 during
the day. I had the greenhouse too airtight several times while learning, and
the CO2 detectors kicked off the propane stoves so they wouldn't produce CO.
Anybody know that threshold?? Anyone?? I used that with a calm night as my
ventilation setpoint. If the heaters stayed on, then I could hold
ventilation at that flow rate on a cold night.
I am sure I have achieved elevated O2 levels because of the human
effects. 1/2 HR spent watering in the evening in March, and I was ready to
work all night. Quite the opposite of altitude sickness. It helps one
recover when you have been stuck in traffic in Cincinnati, or plowing snow
all day, breathing CO. Gee, wonder what It would do for combustion? I have
asked this for 25 years. Got any research money?
Daniel Dimiduk
Shangri-La Research and Development Co...
Dayton, Ohio, USA

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 16:15:04 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, 'forced' air water heater, and shapes
In-Reply-To: <001b01c140e7$ac2c6c20$52e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <11df01c1420f$65c904e0$5b69e1cf@computer>

Crispin and Stovers:

I owe you two or more earlier responses, but will work backwards in
time.

----- Original Message -----
From: Crispin <crispin@newdawn.sz>
To: Stoves <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:46 AM
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, 'forced' air water heater, and
shapes

> Dear Stovers
>
> >Don't forget to add pulse combustion to the list of items needing
research.
>
> Dang! But that sounds interesting! But I'd better stick to something I
am
> already working on.
>
(Special message to Alex English - it seemed to me that your
charcoal-making apparatus might be in this area - as it made considerable
noise. Could you comment on whether you have been intentionaly (or not)
using sound waves for mixing and cleaner combustion?

> Briquette shape:
> I think the most important part of the shape relates to its getting going!
> If we can't light it there is no point making them. I suspect a lot of
> shapes will work. I am only interested at the moment in what can be
> hand-formed because I am trying to get people employed, especially at
> municipal dumps and garbage sorting/recycling facilities.
>
> I agree with Paul: "I am NOT against FC".
>
(RWL): FC (Forced convection) still intrigues me also. We had 3-4
contributions back around May 10-16 from Paul, Andrew Heggie, Dean Still,
and Larry Wisniarski. Hope someone will report on a good way besides a
battery. Anyone have a cost to mention for a 1-2 watt blower package?

> There is at least one product on the South African market that uses
natural
> draft to provide 'forced air' (this is not impossible). There is a water
> heater that uses paraffin variously called something like Geyser 2000 and
> its 2 knock offs (a common problem for inventers here). One man in
> Nelspruit has a patent on the air admission holes. It is a very tall (7
> foot) small diameter stainless steel double tube (about 70mm dia) with a
cup
> of paraffin at the bottom. When this thing is lighted up the long draft
and
> thick, wide wick and high burning temperature cause this thing to roar
like
> an engine. There is a fitting to feed water into the top and out the
bottom
> of the outer of the two concentric tubes. It costs about $125 - all
> stainless steel. It is an imaginative way to get 'forced air' by
extending
> the system upwards and shrinking the diameter. They work really well and
> are very fast.
>
(RWL): Crispin, this sounds like standard ND (Natural Draft). The
natural gas powered hot water heater in my home is fairly similar (about 5
foot high) but similar diameter inner "chimney". We have had a lot of
discussion on this list about the Russian Samovar design - which has a
similar design (but less than 2 foot inner "pipe"). Could yu explain more
about the recharging of this water heater with paraffin, on the wick, and on
the placement of the air holes?

> <snip>
> I want to draw a distinction between what John described and the Mbaula
> which is being promoted in Midrand. The Mbaula has three parts and the
bolo
> (if we can agree to call it that) is a can (usually 20 litres) with holes
> punched in it.

(RWL): Still not sure about the Mbaula's 3 parts. Look forward to your
putting this description on your web site or here. It sounds (in your
message of the 16th) like one of the parts is a tall chimney - but it only
provides draft - not flaring.
>
<snip>
>
> You are making me afraid! What gasses come off a coke-making device?
These
> things are indoors a lot of the time.

(RWL) My belief is that one should be able to combust all (most?) of
the gases from coal - just as from wood (but less of them from coal) with
hopefully the only products being CO2 and H2O. See response also to John
Davies on this subject. The issue here is how to avoid only venting of
these gases - and trying to flare them. If clean enough this can be done
indoors and the flared gases can be useful, whereas vented-only gases of
course must be outdoors.

(RWL): Total agreement with much <snipped> material here..

>
> >RWL: Death must have been caused by carbon monoxide - odorless.
>
> If there is CO in the smoke, we are losing a lot of heat. It should be
> reduced to CO2 for safety and efficiency.
>
(RWL): There is probably plenty enough CO to kill when there is
smoke - but there is enough warning that we don't see deaths at this time.
The danger comes when there is no smoke during the later "smoke-free phase"

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Thu Sep 20 18:09:09 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, 'forced' air water heater, and shapes
In-Reply-To: <001b01c140e7$ac2c6c20$52e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <3BAA6826.657FFF4C@legacyfound.org>

 

Three observations to Crispins recent email ;

1) ref the shape of the briquettes and the need or not for holes and 2) the 9
per time production machine for briquettes.

Sure one can make star, triangular or multi holed briquettes. The hole is
agreed the problem for mass production. Mainting a center hole in a ram feed
with a wet fibrous slurry matrix is a challange enough. Multi holes would be
very difficult indeed. (the slurry has to be donw to ?15% solids in order to
flow-at least under gravity pressure alone). It has to be distributed evenly
about the ram piston ram in a very short time and has to allow for very rapid
expulsion of water through the matrix in production situations. Still, after
having tested a few different shapes star and multi holed, I have returned to
the single hole. The advantage of a hole as opposed to external recesses etc,
is that the heat is being reflected inward and onto other heated surfaces under
an upward draft condition in that hole. The creation of various external shapes
in lieu of a hole at least form out experience, had less effect than the hole
in terms of that thermal reflective effect.

2) Your nine per time machine: We had used a tobacco press screw press to bang
out several (up to about 12 briquettes at a time. It was found to be slower
than the two per time rate we used in the hand batch fed press. For us,
training entprepreneurs under basic rural / urban poverty situations, it boils
down to a simple question of person-hours per briquette. A 6 person team about
one press typically knocks out 500 of the 4" dia x 3 in tall briquettes per
6 hr day . Our earlier 6" dia x 4" tall briquettes would come out at about the
same rate only they were not as practical in our local jikos / mbaulas in Kenya
and Malawi. (This rate includes the time for gathering resources, blending
loading and take off of the final product for drying.
Cost , with microenterprise based local production, (using a simple wood press
made locally with 10 yr lifespan) , mostly free local resources, and
distribution out of the doorstep is essentially the cost of the labor of the
worker/owner x 6 / 500 briquettes.
At an average daily wage for unskilled trainee = USD 2.00 to 3.00 per day,
gives a cost of between 2.4 and 3.6 (US) cents per briquette. Average
consumption was 2 Briquettes per person per day in those more tropical
latitudes. With a family size of 6 persons you are looking at a daily fuel cost
of 29 cents and 43 cents (US) per family per day for cooking and basic
sanitation. We found them to fall within the wood charcoal market ---for
household fuel---in most areas at this pricing --where they were buying wood/
charcoal, or walking more than 4 hrs per week to gather the former.

Ref teh engine roar of a tall stack for that water heater, ever try stacking up
say 6 of your briquettes directly atop each other and burning them at night.
The center hole is not enought to generate a roar but you may realise as we
do, a blue jet flame out the top of the hole. Your noted water heater
application of the draft effect sounds ingenious though.
Regards,

Richard Stanley

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Thu Sep 20 18:12:43 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, 'forced' air water heater, and shapes
In-Reply-To: <001b01c140e7$ac2c6c20$52e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <3BAA68FC.C09EDFCB@legacyfound.org>

 

Three observations to Crispins recent email ;

1) ref the shape of the briquettes and the need or not for holes and 2) the 9
per time production machine for briquettes.

Sure one can make star, triangular or multi holed briquettes. The hole is
agreed the problem for mass production. Maintaing a center hole in a ram feed
or batch fed process, with a wet fibrous slurry matrix is a challange enough.
Multi hole configurations, at least for us were verymuch more difficult indeed.
The slurry has to be down to about 15% solids in order to flow-at least under
gravity pressure alone. It has to be distributed evenly about the piston /ram
in a very short time and has to allow for very rapid expulsion of water through
the matrix in production situations. Still, after having tested a few different
shapes star and multi holed, I have returned to the single hole. The advantage
of a hole as opposed to external recesses etc, is that the heat is being
reflected inward and onto other heated surfaces under an upward draft condition
in that hole. The creation of various external shapes in lieu of a hole at
least form out experience, had less effect than the hole in terms of that
thermal reflective effect.

2) Your nine per time machine: We had used a tobacco press screw press in
Malawi (the PAMET paper making cooperative in Blantyre still does) to bang out
several (up to about 12 briquettes at a time. It was found to be slower than
the two per time rate we used in the hand batch fed press. For us, training
entprepreneurs under basic rural / urban poverty situations, it boils down to
a simple question of person-hours per briquette. A 6 person team about one
press typically knocks out 500 of the 4" dia x 3 in tall briquettes per 6 hr
day . Our earlier 6" dia x 4" tall briquettes would come out at about the same
rate only they were not as practical in our local jikos / mbaulas in Kenya and
Malawi. (This rate includes the time for gathering resources, blending loading
and take off of the final product for drying.
Cost , with microenterprise based local production, (using a simple wood press
made locally with 10 yr lifespan) , mostly free local resources, and
distribution out of the doorstep is essentially the cost of the labor of the
worker/owner x 6 / 500 briquettes.
At an average daily wage for unskilled trainee = USD 2.00 to 3.00 per day,
gives a cost of between 2.4 and 3.6 (US) cents per briquette. Average
consumption was 2 Briquettes per person per day in those more tropical
latitudes. With a family size of 6 persons you are looking at a daily fuel cost
of 29 cents and 43 cents (US) per family per day for cooking and basic
sanitation. We found them to fall within the wood charcoal market ---for
household fuel---in most areas at this pricing --where they were buying wood/
charcoal, or walking more than 4 hrs per week to gather the former.

3) Ref the engine roar of a tall stack for that water heater, ever try stacking
up say 6 of your briquettes directly atop each other and burning them at night.
The center hole is not enought to generate a loud roar but you may realise as
we do, an audible blue jet flame out the top of the hole. Your noted water
heater application of the draft effect sounds ingenious though.

Regards,

Richard Stanley

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Thu Sep 20 18:45:30 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:06 2004
Subject: sequestratioon of carbon
In-Reply-To: <4453040214.4021444530@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <3BAA70AB.85006BAD@legacyfound.org>

 

What if the char that Karve mentions was not put into the earth but rather
hand pulverised and made into more briquettes. The wet process can utilise up
to 45% charcoal fines with suitable fibrous binder residues of which ther are
thousands of choices.
The charcoal briquette burns of course better than any other briquette we have
seen, and it int eh free market againdst wood and charcoal, quickly commands
the best price.

Richard Stanley

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Sep 20 20:24:34 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: CO2 capturing and greenhouses
Message-ID: <7f.1a82bd8e.28dbe159@aol.com>

Dear Greenhousers,
CO is deadly to plants as it is to humans. It is about as toxic as ozone
to plants interfering with oxygen assimilation as much as it does in
hemoglobin. A study done by USDA experimental station in Shafter, California
and one in Phoenix both showed this. CO2 accelerates plant growth
signifcantly up to about 1000 ppm I believe. Then it depresses. However, all
carbon forms have to be complemented with nutrients to assimilate CO2
properly. Hence, increased nutrient supply has to be provided to use the CO2.
This includes calcium, potassium, magnesium, iron, copper, manganese etc.
Without these, the plants will not function properly. I am of the opinion
that plants can be doubled in growth rate and production using a combined CO2
and nutrient system. We use lime on acid and alkaline soils to increase CO2
uptake by the plant and have marvelous results and the agronomists think we
are crazy.
Plants make sugars during the day and absorb carbon dioxide and at night,
burn the sugars using oxygen.
The smog contributes to formation of ozone and other nasties in the
atmosphere. Apparently it acts as a nucleating site for NOx conversion to
ozone. That is why the ozone levels are actually higher in smog areas than
the emissions from vehicles or sun generated ozone. NOx and SOx compounds can
actually benefit plants in small quantities if the carbon compounds as
complex carbohydrates, waxes and so on are present in the plant. The
stripping of the waxy cuticle by acid rain created the Black Forest in
Germany and damages unhealthy plants occurs because the plants are short of
potash and other elements for potash assimilation which produce the
carbohydrates and sugars. Ergo, applying the proper fertilizers will reverse
the damage and make for healthier plants and as a byproduct, the plant
respiration will clean the smog from the atmosphere.
Nitrous oxide is an anaesthetic and a vasodilator. For this reason, it
will enhance lung capacity in humans. However, other forms of NOx compounds
will destroy all tissue, produce nitric acid and in my opinion, cause cancer,
Alzeihmers, Parkinsons, macular degeneration and other health problems. The
continuous exposure to high levels of nitrogen compounds causes premature
cellular reproduction which causes cancer, damage to the nerves and many
people around here report dizziness which I believe is from exposure to
nitrogen compounds.
I can provide some references to this information if time allows.

Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Agronics Inc.
7100-E 2nd St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107
Phone: 505-761-1454 fax:505-761-1458 e-mail linvent@aol.com website:
agonicsinc.com
Attached files are zipped and can be decompressed with <A
HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">www.aladdinsys.com/expander/ </A>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 21:45:27 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, 'forced' air water heater, and shapes
In-Reply-To: <001b01c140e7$ac2c6c20$52e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <00ff01c1423b$71d87780$4ab36441@computer>

Crispin and Stovers:

I owe you two or more earlier responses, but will work backwards in
time.

----- Original Message -----
From: Crispin <crispin@newdawn.sz>
To: Stoves <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:46 AM
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, 'forced' air water heater, and
shapes

> Dear Stovers
>
> >Don't forget to add pulse combustion to the list of items needing
research.
>
> Dang! But that sounds interesting! But I'd better stick to something I
am
> already working on.
>
(Special message to Alex English - it seemed to me that your
charcoal-making apparatus might be in this area - as it made considerable
noise. Could you comment on whether you have been intentionally (or not)
using sound waves for mixing and cleaner combustion?

<snip>

> I agree with Paul: "I am NOT against FC".
>
(RWL): FC (Forced convection) still intrigues me also. We had 3-4
contributions back around May 10-16 from Paul, Andrew Heggie, Dean Still,
and Larry Wisniarski. Hope someone will report on a good way besides a
battery. Anyone have a cost to mention for a 1-2 watt blower package (of
any type)?

> There is at least one product on the South African market that uses
natural
> draft to provide 'forced air' (this is not impossible). There is a water
> heater that uses paraffin variously called something like Geyser 2000 and
> its 2 knock offs (a common problem for inventers here). One man in
> Nelspruit has a patent on the air admission holes. It is a very tall (7
> foot) small diameter stainless steel double tube (about 70mm dia) with a
cup
> of paraffin at the bottom. When this thing is lighted up the long draft
and
> thick, wide wick and high burning temperature cause this thing to roar
like
> an engine. There is a fitting to feed water into the top and out the
bottom
> of the outer of the two concentric tubes. It costs about $125 - all
> stainless steel. It is an imaginative way to get 'forced air' by
extending
> the system upwards and shrinking the diameter. They work really well and
> are very fast.
>
(RWL): Crispin, this sounds like standard ND (Natural Draft). The
natural gas powered hot water heater in my home is fairly similar (about 5
foot high) but similar diameter inner "chimney". Natural gas water heaters
are
supposed to get above 90% efficiency.

We have had a lot of
discussion on this list about the Russian Samovar design - which has a
similar design (but less than 2 foot tall inner "pipe").

Could you explain more
about the recharging of this Geyser 2000 water heater with paraffin, on the
wick, and on
the placement of the air holes? Know anything about its efficiency claims?

> <snip>
> I want to draw a distinction between what John described and the Mbaula
> which is being promoted in Midrand. The Mbaula has three parts and the
bolo
> (if we can agree to call it that) is a can (usually 20 litres) with holes
> punched in it.

(RWL): Still not sure about the Mbaula's 3 parts. Look forward to your
putting this description on your web site or here. It sounds (in your
message of the 16th) like one of the parts is a tall chimney - but it only
provides draft - not flaring.
>
<snip>
>
> You are making me afraid! What gasses come off a coke-making device?
> things are indoors a lot of the time.

(RWL): These are presumably much the same as from the early stages of
the combustion of the Chinese "holey briquettes" - so maybe Tami can inform
us.

(RWL) My belief is that one should be able to combust all (most?) of
the gases from coal - just as from wood (but less total volatiles from coal)
with
hopefully the only products being CO2 and H2O. See response also to John
Davies on this subject. The issue here is how to avoid only venting of
these gases - by trying to flare them. If clean enough this can be done
indoors and the flared gases can be useful, whereas vented-only gases of
course must be outdoors.

(RWL): Total agreement with much <snipped> material here..

>
> >RWL: Death must have been caused by carbon monoxide - odorless.
>
> If there is CO in the smoke, we are losing a lot of heat. It should be
> reduced to CO2 for safety and efficiency.
>
(RWL): There is probably plenty enough CO to kill when there is
smoke - but there is enough warning then that we shouldn't see deaths at
this time.
The danger comes when there is no smoke during the later "smoke-free phase"

Crispin - Thanks for keepng us informed so well. Best of luck. Ron

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 21:46:52 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: A question on pricing energy = MJ or kWh or ?
Message-ID: <010101c1423b$9598b040$4ab36441@computer>

 

Stovers this topic is coming up as a result of a
message today from John Davies - answering a question from Crispin


> > Assuming the local coal has both 20 %
ash and volatiles. this would leave> 60% carbon. assuming 5% of this was
lost in the preburn, leaving 55%. then> the cost of the useful heat
becomes of the potential heat> But by doing  the burn entirely in
the house, would decrease the cost> depending on the heat lost to the
chimney. one may assume that this coal has> a heat value of 21 MJ / Kg.
and a cost of  R0.21 / kg.> > Firewood costs  units with
half the potential heat,> Firewood however has about 75 % volatiles.
Assumed heat value 12 MJ / kg. at> a cost of R 0.46 / Kg.>
> Assuming a 20% loss to the chimney of the volatile component after
which it> is not needed, with coal as the standard of X heat units, 
we see the> following.  The chimney is used during the volatile burn
off as smoke could> be emitted.> > Coal with outside burn
off.  0.21 / ( 21 * 0.55 )  =  R0. 018 / MJ> > Coal
with 20% volatiles to chimney. 0.21 / ( 21 * 0.76 )  = R0.013 / MJ.>
> Wood with 20% volatiles to chimney.  0.46 / ( 12 * 0.85 )  =
R 0.045 / MJ> > Wood with  no heat
loss.                
0.46 /  12  =   R 0.038 /
MJ>     John and others:  I find I can't
mentally compute this energy cost - although it is a very fine unit.  On
this list, we certainly measure energy in Megajoules a lot - as you have
above. And maybe you use this pricing unit in South Africa - but I think it
is not common around the world (where we seem to think in costs per barrel or
tonne or MCF, etc.  The only really common worldwide energy unit that I can
think of is the kilowatt-hour.  Because 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ (or 1 MJ = .2778
kWh) then your final cost above (R.038/MJ) becomes R 0.1368/kWht  (where
the added "t" is commonly used in the US to denote a thermal quantity; 
sometimes we even add an e for an electric unit).  For most of us we need
to further change out of Rands.  I found a recent exchange rate of 8.67 R =
1 $, so your computation gives for me $0.0158/kWht - and I think this sounds
quite reasonable.  I believe your coal cost of about 1/3 this amount
(13/38) is about the coal fuel cost in this country  (Electricity from coal
is often sold wholesale at night at about $.01/kWhe, where the efficiency of
conversion is also about 1/3.)

US electric utilities actually would probably want to
quantify the above as $15.8/ MWht  (or perhaps as 15.8 mils /
kWht,  where 1000 mils = $1.00). 

Anyone want to weigh in on whether any of these
conventions is one we on this list should employ?  Which countries price in
Megajoules?  If a lot, the rest of us can multiply by 3.6 to get into
kWh.

Thoughts ?

Ron


From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 21:47:28 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, (Reply to John Davies; also on energy cost units)
In-Reply-To: <001b01c140e7$ac2c6c20$52e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <010201c1423b$9743ef40$4ab36441@computer>

 

John: A few comments on your message today.

----- Original Message -----

You said in response to questions from Crispin

<big snip>
(Crispin)
> > The suggestions about lighting it at the top and burning down are only
> going
> > to be implemented if there is no smell from the coals as they cook.
>
(Davies)
> On the one test that I did with top lighting with coal, It was found that
> the volatiles flame was roughly in proportion to the volatile content, for
> equal heat output rate, from each phase of burning. The coal gave a much
> shorter volatile burn. But the necessary operation of adjusting the air
> flows
> would not endear this system to the target group. Such a system with
> automatic air control would be ideal for the affluent population, who can
> afford the technology and prefer a constant heat output.
>
(RWL): 1. What was your experience with odors?

2. I have found that the adjustments with a top-lighting arrangement are
much less than with usual cooking - I have maintained the same slow rolling
boil for an hour with no adjustments (and almost instantaneous response). I
hope you can report back later as you gain more experience.

3. The much smaller amount of volatiles with coal is a significant issue
however - and I have no experience here. Perhaps that is enough reason to
ignore the cooking during "coking" operation. But I still think it
desirable to flare rather than vent and perhaps the solution is to find a
use such as water heating in a device like a large samovar - and then move
the "coke" (perhaps in a Crispin-made wire basket) to the intercooking
stage. The main justification is to clean up the air - but capturing some
heat for some useful purpose might be worth while. I think this can be done
with a zero-control (low cost) special unit - but I can appreciate a
conclusion that some will think that not worth while.

4. But how about this option.? Assuming there is some local group that
sells hot tea, or brews beer, or washes clothes, etc. Might there be a
market for the "clean coal" (coke) - where the price could be slightly
higher and the person having the thermal need basically gets free fuel?

> I fully agree with Crispin's views. bottom burn gives the best sulphur
> removal, It is the simplest and easiest method. Adapting the BOLO * to
give
> a reasonably clean initial burn, will allow this to be done in the house
> under a chimney. Capturing most of the wasted heat in the house. In the
> summer we have the opposite where the house is stifling hot without a
fire.
> In this case, an outside operation will be preferred. But in both cases,
> smoke pollution would be vastly reduced.
>
(RWL): I am missing something - what is the bottom burn approach? Is it a
flaring approach with heat recapture?

2. I don't believe the sulfur removal will be different either way - can
you explain why top or bottom lighting should make a difference? I contend
tht you can'r flare with bottom lighting (except for a down-draft design)
>
> Whether coal or bio-mass is used the methods would be the same, just the
air
> porting would be slightly different for the different gas composition, and
> the fire bed area and depth would be roughly in proportion to the heat
> value of the fuel. The bottom burn also allows fuel to be added in small
> quantities as required. This would not be done with coal while cooking,
but
> the longer burn of the coke should eliminate this need.
>
(RWL): 1. Not sure of your application here, but for wood alone there
can be many "best" fire bed areas and depths. During the pyrolysis phase,
the area largely determines the power out. Then, the depth determines the
energy out. It should roughly be the same for coal. For the same power
out, the coal and wood units might have nearly the same area. For the same
energy you would need a greater depth. But after both are mostly carbon,
the issue must become strongly related to the weight density.

<snip>

> Wishing you well with your trials.
>
> Regards,
> John Davies.
>

John - Thanks for your doing these tests.

Ron

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 21:48:15 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Fw: Norbert Senf; Dyson GCC Paper and modern stove emissions
Message-ID: <010301c1423b$98fff720$4ab36441@computer>

Stovers: This very informative reply message just in from Norbert Senf, to
a message I sent in yesterday following Tami's papers on GCC. I have
several added follow-up inserts below, but need to say that the basic reason
for the Masonry Heating Association having such clean burn is that they
employ a very hot quick burn, using a long circuitous combined "chimney -
heat_storage" system.

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Norbert Senf <mheat@mha-net.org>
To: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Dyson GCC Paper

> At 06:56 PM 2001-09-19 -0600, you wrote:
> >Hi Norbert
> >
> > Thanks for sending this message in - as a follow-up to Tami's post.
See
> >some notes/questions below.
> >
> >1. It has been a long time since we have had a message from "MHA" -
Masonry
> >Heating Association. (To others - this is an organization with an
excellent
> >record of understanding modern stoves design. ) This list has benefitted
a
> >lot from your observations for rural traditional stoves. When I again
> >explored your MHA web site, I saw John Crouch's name - another list
member -
> >in an environmental position. I believe this list would benefit greatly
> >from hearing more from you and/or John and others on the MHA view of the
GCC
> >issue (I think we should limit our discussion to the stoves aspects
of
> >GCC)
>
> Hi Ron:
>
> John Crouch works for the Hearth Products Association. He is their
> government relations specialist. One of his main job functions is to keep
> tabs on things like emissions regulations and represent the interests of
> manufacturers. It started in the 70's as the Wood Heating Alliance, but
> they just changed their name to the Hearth, Patio and Barbeque
Association.
> A lot of gas products have come out in the last 10 years, and they were
> eclipsing the wood products until last winter's gas crisis. They have a
> large annual trade show where all the owners of stove shops check out the

> latest products. John is quite knowledgeable in the emissions regulations
end.
>
(RWL-1): I hope that John will feel free to add more as he is able -
from the standpoint of a different association. I didn't read his position
carefully enough. Apologies.

> MHA is plugging away. We have about 50 - 60 members. Right now we are
> engaged in trying to get masonry heaters recognized by the building codes.
> Our focus used to be emissions, but currently it is safety (clearances to
> combustibles).
>
> On the GCC front, my personal belief is that masonry heaters deserve
closer
> scrutiny. As is clear from Tami's posts, not only CO2 output has to be
> looked at, but also particulates. When it comes to burning cordwood,
> nothing is cleaner than a masonry heater, by a wide margin. For example,
> real world numbers for "aged" EPA certified woodstoves are turning out to
> be in the 10 g/kg range for particulates. On a bad day, a masonry heater
> will burn at around 3 g/kg. We also have some data that indicates that as
> your PM's go down, the nasty PAH's reduce even more dramatically.
>
(RWL): PAH is "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons" - of which 7 are
known to be carcinogenic. See Crouch paper below that is partly on this
subject.

> It has always seemed to me that as North Americans, the easiest way to
> reduce our personal fossil fuel consumption is to get our house off oil.
If
> you want to burn wood for heating, however, the trick is to burn it
> cleanly. Seems like a much simpler task than trying to get a clean burning
> cookstove.
>
>
> >2. I see that you copied the Freeman Dyson talk from a submission last
week
> >on the CREST "Greenbuilding" list site. I have not been following that
> >list. Has there been quite a bit on that list on GCC.? Can you give the
> >background on why this paper was first printed on "Greenbuilding"?

>
> There is not too much about GCC on that list. However, it is quite
> eclectic, and one of the contributors just happened to post this paper. It
> has always been a pretty good list, but lately there has been a bit of
> background noise. It is run by the publishers of "Environmental Building
> News" out of New Hampshire, which I would say is the leading publication
in
> the field.
>
>
> >3. At the CREST location (last week), Dyson added this thought about
> >progress in the 2.5 years since his talk:
> >
> > "The main thing
> >that changed in the science is that the discrepancy between measured
> >absorption of sunlight and the computer models has been more or less
> >resolved. The discrepancy for absorption in clear air was due to
> >systematic error in the radiometers. Some discrepancy remains for
> >absorption in cloudy conditions, but the discrepancy is not as large as
> >was claimed."
>
> Interesting. Great to see somebody who is knowledgeable down to this level
> of detail and can still put it into a larger context.
>
>
> >4. Could you or John explain the EPA standards for stoves emissions and
> >compare these to stoves emissions in developing countries?
> >How much better than the standards do stoves sold in Canada and the US
> >achieve?
>
> The EPA standard is for PM-10. It is 7 grams per hour using the EPA M5G
> test method. CO is not really regulated. In Europe, regulation is for CO
> and NOx. Steiermark state in Austria has the stricted CO standard in the
> world. The Europeans also regulate minimum efficiency.
>
> There has been a fair bit of field work to see how real world numbers
> relate to the laboratory test method. The original EPA stoves were tuned
to
> the laboratory test, and weren't that much cleaner in the field. The most
> recent study that I'm aware of was done by Dr. Dennis Jaasma of Virginia
> Tech 3 or 4 years ago where they looked at stoves in the field that had
> aged. I believe they came in at around 10 grams. It was cleaner than
> non-EPA stoves, but not by a whole lot. Nobody is really talking about
this
> study. One of the things with EPA stoves is that the technology required
to
> get a clean burn at a low burn rate is quite sophisticated, requiring
> carefully calibrated stainless steel secondary air tubes, etc. You can
well
> imagine what can happen inside a stove over the years in terms of wear and
> tear.
>
(RWL): Back on March 14, John put in a nice message on modern stove
emissions
and EPA, with this web address being recommended:
http://www.omni-test.com/Publications.htm
There was a nice 2001 report shown with John as a co-author, talking
about lots of emissions that are now more important to this list. I hope
John can update us on anything new - with emphasis on how to make cheap
measurements.. ("PAH's" are in here).

> Masonry heaters of course avoid all of this by simply using an optimum
burn
> rate and then storing the heat. The insides are refractory, so there is
> nothing really to wear out, unless you overfire them for a long time.
>
> We can only measure masonry heaters particulates in grams per kilogram of
> fuel, because we can't determine the burn rate by putting an 8,000 lb
stove
> on a scale. So, there is a convention that at a nominal 1 kg/hr burn rate,
> which is one of the EPA test burn rates, g/hr and g/kg are the same.
>
> OMNI in Oregon did a field test of 5 different masonry heaters about 10
> years ago. The heaters with no grate came in at about 1.5 g/kg and the
> heaters with a grate came in at 5 g/kg. I believe that this is due to
> quenching by the fuel load itself during the cold start.

(RWL): Interesting difference - as we usually hear that grates improve
the burn
>
> One of our main problems is that we are excluded from the EPA regulations,
> originally because EPA reasoned that we were likely to be clean, and
wanted
> to keep it simple. The unfortunate result is that when local
jurisdictions,
> such as the San Francisco Bay Area, etc., come up with clean air
> regulations, woodburning is an obvious target, and the simplest solution
is
> to say "EPA stove only".
>
> This is about to happen in Berkely, and I have made a written submission
to
> them that they should also consider their GCC responsibilities, and not
> ban, by default, a great technology like masonry heaters.
>
>
> >5. Any general guidance on our recent topics? (coal, coking, holey
> >briquettes, etc)?
>
> Have been following the discussions with interest, but don't know very
much
> about them. I went down to Guatemala with Pat Manley last winter to build
> cookstoves, so am eager to learn all I can. However, seeing how they are
> used in the field is quite removed from the finer points of current
> research. The main priority in the villages that we saw was simply to put
a
> stovepipe on so that they cooks weren't breathing smoke.
>
> Best ........ Norbert
>
>
> >6. Thanks again for the leads.
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Thu Sep 20 21:49:30 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Shell and Coal? (I'm off list for a week)
Message-ID: <010f01c1423b$eab7c3e0$4ab36441@computer>

 

Stovers:

1.  We have been somewhat off our biomass
target here when talking about coal for the last several weeks, but the need is
obviously very great in South Africa.  Maybe our discussions will lead to a
greater planting of trees near the users and a return to the more sustainable
and cleaner use of biomass.  And/or maybe we can suggest approaches that
will be cleaner.

2.  As a matter of more direct interest to everyone on the list,
I encourage a discussion of whether the Shell Foundation should expend some of
their funds on coal stove improvements.  The problem is that Shell has
announced that their funds should be restricted to those that are
"sustainable".  What do you think?

3.  I am taking a week's vacation
starting tomorrow and assume that Alex and Elsen or Tom Miles can take over
until October 1.   
Ron

From ronallarson at qwest.net Fri Sep 21 01:29:35 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Fw: new issue of World Bank IAP newsletter
Message-ID: <000301c1425e$01877c60$c469e1cf@computer>

Stovers -

This is a fine summary of the World Bank evaluation of the Indian stove
program that I mentioned a day or so ago and forgot to forward data on.
This shows how to get on their mailing list as well - both hard copy and
e-mail.

The main evaluative message I got was that there was not sufficient
interaction between the implementers and the technical staff.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Shell Foundation Dialogue <dialogue-approval@lists.dircon.co.uk>
To: <dialogue@shellfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 2:16 AM
Subject: FW: new issue of World Bank IAP newsletter

> ----------
> From: JESinton@lbl.gov
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 17:31:46 +0100 (BST)
> To: To: Dialogue@shellfoundation.org
> Subject: new issue of World Bank IAP newsletter
>
> Dear Participants,
>
> Sameer Akbar has made the fifth and latest version of the newsletter
"Indoor
> Air Pollution: Energy and Health for the Poor" available to us. It will be
> posted on the resources page, under "Organizations", where a link to an
> earlier issue already exists. Note that the existing URL links to the
World
> Bank's South Asia page, and the link to the newsletter is on the list on
the
> right side of the page, under "Special Interest".
>
> Best regards,
>
> -Jonathan Sinton
> Moderator
>
> ----------
> From: sakbar@worldbank.org
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 04:40:39 +0100 (BST)
> To: Dialogue@shellfoundation.org
> Subject: Newsletter
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Assuming that the mailing list is still active......attached is the 5th
> issue of a Newsletter, Indoor Air Pollution: Energy and Health for the
Poor.
> This issue of the Newsletter discusses the key issues and challenges of
> India's National Program of Improved Cookstoves, based on the results of a
> just completed evaluation exercise undertaken by TERI and Winrock under
the
> umbrella of a World Bank/ESMAP-supported study on Household Energy, Air
> Pollution and Health.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This Newsletter is produced and disseminated as part of a World Bank/ESMAP
> study in India, Household Energy, Air Pollution and Health.
>
> If you would like to be added to our distribution list, please email to
> Sadaf Alam, salam@worldbank.org.
>
> Requests for copies of a printed version should be sent to Priti Kumar,
> pritikumar@mantraonline.com.
>
> Comments, suggestions and contributions to the next issues are most
welcome
> and should be emailed to Kseniya Lvovsky, klvovsky@worldbank.org and
Sameer
> Akbar, sakbar@worldbank.org, with a copy to Priti Kumar,
> pritikumar@mantraonline.com.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sameer Akbar
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------- South Asia Social and
> Environment Unit The World Bank 70 Lodi Estate New Delhi 110 003 INDIA
>
> Email: sakbar@worldbank.org Tel: 011-4617241 extn 319 Fax: 011-4619393
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> This forum has now concluded and there will be no further moderator¹s
> involvement. However, the address list will remain functional until 11
> October for any last-minute comments addressed to the workshop.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Visit the on-line resources page at the Household Energy and Health
> Dialogue website
> (http://www.shellfoundation.org/dialogues/household_energy/resources/),
> where reference materials recommended by contributors to this forum have
> been posted.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Fri Sep 21 01:30:51 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: employment statistics.
In-Reply-To: <00c201c13dac$b21b7e20$50e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <000401c1425e$0318cac0$c469e1cf@computer>

AD. Thanks for sending this on. I know that Dan Kammen has been looking
for employment values so this may be helpful to him for his COM7 paper.

One question below:

> We have also been able to sell the char from sugarcane leaves without any
> difficulty, and several persons have now been trained by us in this
> technology too.

AD - this is the first report I have heard of selling "flake" or "dust"
charcoal. Can you supply more information on how it might be used and the
cost/price relative to other fuel stocks? (To others - this was obtained
by a flaring process demonstrated at the Pune conference, I think using
ideas provided by Dr. Yury and Alex English. Thanks again. Ron

> A.D.Karve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Stanley <rstanley@legacyfound.org>
>

<large snip>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Fri Sep 21 01:32:00 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: sequestratioon of carbon
In-Reply-To: <4453040214.4021444530@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <000501c1425e$043621a0$c469e1cf@computer>

AD. I hope we can hear more on this idea. I have one fear that it might
end up eventually being converted by bacteria to a CH4 form. Anyone able to
confirm one way or another.

Another option is to move heavily towards a more carbon-based
construction industry. Carbon filaments are incredibly strong.

Of course we can always just leave the coal (and oil and gas) in the
ground and use the charcoal/carbon locally (maybe with conversion to liquid
and gaseous fuels which will be in increasingly short supply.

As you have added this to Tami's Paper #5, you are obviously thinking
of who pays any incremental costs - I support your conclusion, regardless of
the word "sequestration". It is not obvious that this will be possible by
the time of Rio+10.

Ron

> Here is how the domestic cookstove in the third world can contribute to
> carbon sequestration.
> Use a charcoal making stove but use the energy of only the volatile part
of
> the biomass for cooking. The char should not be used as fuel but should
be
> thrown into a pit. In this way we take carbon out of circulation and give
> it back to mother earth, replacing the coal extracted from her bowels.
The
> industrially advanced nations should pay for this activity, because the
> housewife in the developing country would be contributing to carbon
> sequestration.
> A.D.Karve

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Fri Sep 21 01:32:50 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Hay for fuel
In-Reply-To: <727CFCBBE1C3D41181FC005004201AA09FD783@ORMAT-NT>
Message-ID: <000601c1425e$055b19a0$c469e1cf@computer>

 

Zoli -  Thanks for this
suggestion.

1.  I looked at your recommended site and
found some usefulness, but it does not yet include an easy search for the
products of companies such as you cited. (as they presumably want to sell
that feature.) It is much more helpful for looking in a particular
country.  I think it may be free (??) to get listed so some of our members
might want this exposure.

2.  I tried looking up on the web the
companies you mentioned and found the first easily, the second with some
difficulty (both Danish) and couldn't find the third.  (These are
combustor/gasifier firms)

3.  The Ormat firm by whom you are employed is
very well known in solar energy circles for your high speed turbines.  It
is a little surprising to find you on the stoves list.  Can we look forward
to small home-based generation systems based on such topics as "holey"
briquettes, charcoal-making stoves, etc?  (sort of a joke - but it would be
fun to hear more about your work and background).

4.  To Richard on greenhouse heating - look up
the responses especially of Alex English and Dan Dimiuk - both of whom are in
that business.  Look at the web site Alex maintains for this list for some
possible experimental results of interest: <A
href="http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html"
target=_blank>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

 
Ron
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Zoli Bihari

To: <A href="mailto:rifa@advertisnet.com"
title=rifa@advertisnet.com>Richard & Faye ; <A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org" title=stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org

Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:58
AM
Subject: RE: Hay for fuel

Hi Richard and all,
Take a look at
<A href="http://www.jxj.com/suppands/renenerg/index.html"
target=_blank>http://www.jxj.com/suppands/renenerg/index.html
There you can find suppliers in your region. <FONT
size=2>Most of manufacturers are from The Netherlands, Denmark and the
area. You can take a look for their sites.
Search for DanTrim, MaskinFabrik, Combo GR etc.
Zoli
Zoli Bihari R&D - Ormat Ltd. -
Israel Tel:   972 (8) 9433894
Fax:  972 (8) 9439901 E-mail:
zbihari@ormat.com
> -----Original Message----- >
From: Richard & Faye [<A
href="mailto:rifa@advertisnet.com">mailto:rifa@advertisnet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:56 PM
> To: stoves@crest.org >
Subject: Hay for fuel > <FONT
size=2>> > I have several greenhouses that I am
thinking of heating with > old round hay
> bales.  Moldy and not usable for the cattle. 
I would like to > make this a <FONT
size=2>> hot water system.  Does anyone know were I can get
information about a > product like this?
> > Richard Salmons
> >

 

From ronallarson at qwest.net Fri Sep 21 01:34:03 2001
From: ronallarson at qwest.net (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Stoves-Archives Project
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010918121254.00e30920@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <000701c1425e$08992da0$c469e1cf@computer>

 

Paul:

This is to support the offer of
Dr. Priya and to thank you for your offer to financially support this. 
As 10-15 of us on this list were able to be in Pune about 11 months
ago, we can perhaps set your mind at ease by answering a few of the questions
below:
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
---<FONT
size=2>Priyadarshini,     (Are you the person known
as AD Karve, as in your second e-mail address above?  I want to make sure
that I am addressing you correctly.)
(RWL):  Dr. Priya is the daughter of Dr.
AD.  I suspect you will get two for the price of one and both are
exceptionally talented.  They have been the Indian "operators" of the
Indian Improved stoves program in the Maharashtra state which was written up
in the UN pamphlet that I forwarded information about today.
Hello,I first want to accept your
offer of assistance.  As a MINIMUM I pledge US$250 to this project. 
At 10 hours per week and $1.00 per hour, that is almost 6 months of
work.  Here are several considerations for which we need some discussion
and agreement.1.  Are you a Rotarian?  (Do you have contact
or can you establish contact with Rotarians in Pune?)   (By the way,
are others on the Stoves listserve Rotarians besides Crispin and
me?) 

(RWL):  Not me. 
But Pune is a huge city - takes more than an hour to get across by
jitney.  Has to be several Rotary clubs there. There is a statue of
a famous Karve (grandfather of AD?) in the center of the city - famous
for starting a well known University there (for women?)  The Karves will
have many prominent local connections.
<snip>

3.  The desired end results should be
considered now at the beginning, and I hope that Ron and others with long
understanding of the Stoves listserve archives will give guidance.
(RWL):   I think we can get lots of
help from this list - and I will certainly contribute.  See especially my
final paragraph.
4.  I suggest that a trial run be
conducted for finding and sharing the available archived information about one
or two significant topics, such
as:        A. 
ACTUAL stove designs, including specifications for
construction.        B. 
QUANTITATIVE data about stove performances, including specifications of the
nature of the "test"
conducted.        C. 
The issue of biomass briquettes with HOLES, either by manufacture or by
"configuration" of fuel-pieces to product hole
effects.    (RWL): 
Fortunately,  both Karves have excellent experience in all three
areas you suggest.  They have recently gotten some emissions monitoring
equipment.  They have a rural area experimental site away from Pune and
can conduct experiments of many types.  Pune is in the middle of one of
the most prosperous parts of India - and almost anything one can want can be
found there.  We saw dozens (hundreds?) of Internet cafes.
<SNIP>
Thanks for
listening.Paul      (the map
guy).
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice:  309-438-7360; 
FAX:  309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: <A
href="http://www.ilstu.edu/~psanders"
EUDORA="AUTOURL">www.ilstu.edu/~psanders


(RWL):   Thanks again to both Priya and Paul. 

The only modification I would make to your proposed organization
structure is to consider bringing Alex English in to the operation.  He
unfortunately says too little on this list, but he has a great deal to offer,
understands and has organized the stove material already on his web site, is
obviously respected and liked by both Karves,  has the most experience of
our whole group outside India on the ARTI organization, and is excellent with
producing and understanding experiments.  He also has recently guided a
student in Canada and is a computer whiz himself.  He is probably too
busy and may be too modest to accept - but I still urge pressuring Alex
to come in as well.

Ron

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Fri Sep 21 07:08:53 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, (Reply to John Davies;also cost figures, and Bio-Mass)
In-Reply-To: <001b01c140e7$ac2c6c20$52e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <006e01c1428d$3107c7e0$a1d11ac4@jmdavies>

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
To: John Davies <jmdavies@xsinet.co.za>; stove list <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: Coal burning in the townships, (Reply to John Davies; also on
energy cost units)

>
> John: A few comments on your message today.
> (Crispin)
> > > The suggestions about lighting it at the top and burning down are only
> > going
> > > to be implemented if there is no smell from the coals as they cook.
> >
> (Davies)
> > On the one test that I did with top lighting with coal,
......................
>> But the necessary operation of adjusting the air flows
> > would not endear this system to the target group.

> (RWL): 1. What was your experience with odors?

At the time I was not thinking of odours, just a comparison.
My thoughts have been that the sulphur fumes from the bottom would be re
absorbed in the coals above.
This might not be true. This test was also done with a separate gas burner
raised above the gasifier.

>
> 2. I have found that the adjustments with a top-lighting arrangement are
> much less than with usual cooking - I have maintained the same slow
rolling
> boil for an hour with no adjustments (and almost instantaneous response).
I
> hope you can report back later as you gain more experience.

Good point.

> 3. The much smaller amount of volatiles with coal is a significant issue
> however - and I have no experience here. Perhaps that is enough reason to
> ignore the cooking during "coking" operation.

Agreed.

But I still think it
> desirable to flare rather than vent and perhaps the solution is to find a
> use such as water heating in a device like a large samovar - and then move
> the "coke" (perhaps in a Crispin-made wire basket) to the intercooking
> stage. The main justification is to clean up the air - but capturing some
> heat for some useful purpose might be worth while. I think this can be
done
> with a zero-control (low cost) special unit - but I can appreciate a
> conclusion that some will think that not worth while.

I think that this idea is the JACKPOT. If the chimney used for flaring is
surrounded by a water jacket. and if secondary air is introduced just above
the coal in the normal BOLO, then a top lighting could gain favour.

A simple test done yesterday, indicates that Crispins usage of an outer
shroud to conserve heat in the BOLO, and heat combustion air will be an
advantage. this could however reduce the life of the BOLO tin

 

From CAVM at aol.com Fri Sep 21 08:32:33 2001
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Hay for fuel
Message-ID: <ea.1b16ba73.28dc8c3b@aol.com>

Hay makes a fair to good fuel in a Taylor Water Stove. This unit is hand fed
and can use a variety of feedstocks. An entire round bale of hay can be
loaded into the burn chamber. A root wad, log, junk mail, broken pallet, and
other scrap becomes fuel for this combustion unit.

The Taylor Water Stove provides dependable and economical hot water heat with
waste fuel. Combined with a well designed insulation package you can find
your heating needs and costs greatly reduced.

I would suggest that interested parties in the USA contact
K. Smith-Gary at
Remarcinc@AOL.com.

She has entensive experience in building refit, insulation and combustion
applications. We have worked with Mrs. Smith-Gary on several projects. She
can also help you with the Taylor Water Stove.

Cornelius A. Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc
byproduct processors

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From VHarris001 at aol.com Fri Sep 21 10:14:47 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Needed research
Message-ID: <6b.1b05f986.28dca454@aol.com>

Dear Vernon,
we too are working on stove designs that would provide secondary air to the burning biomass, without having to use a blower. From that point of view, we are interested in knowing even about your failures, so that we avoid making the same mistakes. One of our failures consisted of introducing into the stove firebox a set of tubes, which were supposed to draw outside air and introduce it into the flame. We expected this device to make use of the ventury effect of the air current going from the grate towards the pot. The air of course had no intention of doing anything of this sort.
A.D.Karve

Unfortunately, there are many examples of failures in the pulse combustion field.  I'm reading with interest the ongoing testing of valveless pulse combustors being discussed at <www.pulse-jets.com> under the forum section.  There are also many plans for valved pulse-jets and a few plans for valveless pulse jets on the web site, and many valuable links.

Of course, these pulse-jets are intended to be optimized for generation of thrust, so they are noisy and perhaps not particularly fuel efficient.  Still they demonstrate that the principle is sound and might be suitable for adaptation to stove and gasification.  In fact, it might eventually prove to be the case that pulse combustion is more suitable for blowing and burning than for generating thrust :-)

It's worth taking a look at the technology.  As I come across relevant information, I'll be sure to post it here.

Vernon Harris

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Fri Sep 21 10:26:04 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: sequestratioon of carbon
Message-ID: <f9.fd3837f.28dca6f6@aol.com>

Ron,
The question here is, what happens to charcoal when it is underground?
Does it break down into CO, CO2 and CH4? The best answer I have is: mostly
no. We as cavers use charcoal as the best evidence of ancient civilization.
The structure is so intact that the type of wood (or cane from a torch) can
often be identified. Geologists often find charcoal from incredibly old
forest fires still somewhat identifiable. If it did evaporate somehow, all of
the coal would be gone too.
There are mechanisms for breakdown. To the best of my knowledge most
involve lifeforms of some type. Usually the fungi are the first in, but
bacteria can absorb about anything that will dissolve. The presents of oxygen
and water is required, and I believe that ammonia is most likely to be the
reformer, all that H. That means the closer to the surface the charcoal is
buried, and the more alive the soil is, the more likely the charcoal will
decay. The more ammonia, the more bacteria, the more CH4 is favored over
fungi producing CO2.
In soil science, I do not see enough written about silicon and Si02-.
Silicon dioxide is a negative ion and looks to play a major role in ion
storage. Anyone know about this? I don't often see it mentioned in plant
books. The destruction of charcoal in the soil must be in an acid
environment because pure carbon is C+. Many fungi produce acids to
dissolve the rocks they live on. We have all seen fungi on old logs, so we
know they love carbon, not much N or anything else left from the weathering
process, maybe some P. Ever notice how dark organic matter can be?
When coal forms in bogs, the peat and other organic matter is flushed of
N, K, and P. The acid environment is the agent, formed from carbonic acid and
phosphoric acid. The problem is that there is little oxygen, so the carbon is
left behind. Many of the impurities in coal come from 400,000,000 years of
water and steam percolation. Any available metal or sulfur ion will bond to
the carbon. I believe the study of coal impurities could reveal much
geologic history. It is the earths activated carbon filter.
I may not have all of these facts straight, if anyone has better
information, please inform me. Let us figure out how to dig less coal, and
store more carbon as charcoal. Start with those mine drainage tunnels, and
see how clean the water gets.
Daniel Dimiduk
Shangri-La Research and Development Co.
Dayton, Ohio,USA

 

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Fri Sep 21 11:36:28 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:07 2004
Subject: Coal burning in the townships, (Reply to John Davies;also cost figures, ...
Message-ID: <12d.4ed6908.28dcb760@aol.com>

John,
Lets examine this top Vs bottom burning and removal of impurities. The
big difference Ron, is the presents of sulfur and more nitrogen in the coal
than in the seasoned biomass.
The reason coking coal was perfected from 1700-1900 was to keep the
sulfur and phosphorus out of the rock-coal heated iron. The king was not
happy when the switch was made form charcoal to rock coal because his swords
and chains broke, and the cannon exploded. If they had just coppiced and
replanted the trees they would still have had charcoal.
The sulfur in a bottom fired stove, has more time to heat up and boil
off, as pure carbon absorbs a lot of heat. Unfortunately the combination of
sulfur and ammonia forms some real nasty stuff. Then the carbon starts
producing tars and locking all this nastiness in a slow release form. Wow!
What we need to do is to either mix in some limestone, powered lime may
work, or set up some contraption with a scrubber of sorts to catch the
pollution. This favors a crude coke plant with heat used for generation or
hot water. The coke is not super pure, but the addition of some lime during
coking may help. The coke has little volatile and should be burned like
charcoal, with much hot air.
How about a coke plant/cement plant? The burning gas goes into the
kiln. Load burner from top and coke out bottom. You have to quench coke by
starving the air completely for a while till cold. Ron, There's your cement
plant Idea really in action. I don't know what the sulfur would do though,
might weaken the cement. Could it be drawn out separately? Anybody?
As far as growing trees in a hostile environment. Start by building
runoff catch ponds, even if they don't hold water long term, they will build
soil moisture. Then use a lot of natural mulch of anykind, even grass.
Plant trees in clusters to conserve moisture, around and down ravine from the
ponds. Look for tree species that thrive in the local environment, or even a
more hostile environment, like stand alone types that don't require
protection of other trees.
Once a stand is established, then vary the species within by
interplanting of more sensitive species. Expand the tree clusters with
additional trees, to catch the dew formed from the moisture the established
trees put in the air at night. Allow the leaves to drop and settle forming
soil. Only use branches and dead trees for wood at first. Then thin to
introduce harderwood trees. One dead tree, and fruiting trees, may promote
wildlife bringing it's natural fertilizer.
If there is nothing but rock, make your own soil and put it in the low
spots in the rock. Make soil with sand, fine clay, and organic matter of any
kind, with composted manure the best. Mix the soil well and mulch good. It
takes a foot or more to establish most trees, but the larger the area
planted, the less soil depth necessary. If the area is dry plant low. If wet
plant high.
Trees will not grow in very hot sand, or year, round ice, but short of
that, just about everywhere else. Do the animals destroy the trees? Use
precautions for that.
Happy tree farming,
Daniel Dimiduk

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Sep 21 14:47:49 2001
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: Stoves-Archives Project--Expansion???
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010918121254.00e30920@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20010921115648.00e44630@mail.ilstu.edu>

Drs. AD and Priya Karve (with info for Stovers),

(Note of caution:  The first part of this message is very much in
the line of the Stoves topics and I hope you will read it.  
But UNPLANNED  by me, at the end of my message I found myself forced
into a corner from which I could only make an editorial comment.  So
I put this note of caution at the beginning.)

Three developments concerning the Stoves-Archives Project:

1.  Ron has replied, likes the concept, and pledges his
support.  His highly favorable comments about what he and others saw
in Pune a year ago are greatly appreciated.

2.  Ron suggests the involvement of Alex English, and we hope to
hear from Alex any suggestions or involvement he might have.

3.  An additional sponsor for the project has been identified, and I
would like to introduce to the Stove people Nicholas Nayak, who has
several unique characteristics:
a. 
Nick and wife Anjuli are both physicians, specialized in allergies and
asthma treatment and research.
b. 
The Nayak's are originally from India, and Nick's father lives in Pune
!!!  and Nick will be visiting Pune in November.  Nick's
contacts with and observations about Stover issues will be extremely
important to me and to my fellow Stoves-associates here in
Illinois.
c. 
The Nayak's live in my town, Normal, Illinois, USA, where we share our
Rotary connections,
d. 
The Nayak's have agreed to match my offer of US$250.00 for the proposed
stoves work to be done in Pune.  So we will be able to hand-deliver
in November (unless needed earlier) the sum of US$500.00.  We just
need to decide on the details of the activities.

That leads us to needing the response from the Karve's, their associates,
and any other Stovers.   Interest level, and some details.

All should feel free to reject the idea of the Stoves-Archives Project if
it is not worth the money that we have found to do it.  Should the
money go to something else?

But I am also encouraged to even propose an EXPANSION:

How much important stoves work could be done with a few thousand dollars
more?  I am thinking of the availability in India of qualified
students doing tasks that Stovers would like to see accomplished AND for
which there can be supervision in Pune.

I believe that we could find at least $3000 to $5000 to pay for
appropriate work, maybe more.

This money might even be viewed as seed money to help get larger funding
(such as Shell Foundation assistance) to establish an even larger effort
for Stoves work, both theoretical and applied.

But before I would fully support my own suggestion, I would like to know
more about the operations / schools in Pune, specifically about Stoves
issues (graduate students, etc.).

I must add that I was highly impressed by the account of the mud stoves
in Pune, which I reprint here in case you missed it (and because I want
to add some questions and comments.)

>>>>>>>>>>  Message from AD Karve
>>>>>>>>>.
Dear Stanley and Crispin,
I sympathise with you because of your frustration with funding
agencies,
becasue I too have many research ideas which are lying untested due to
lack
of funding. However, as far as the stoves are concerned, we were lucky
to
get financial support from our Ministry of Non-conventional Energy
Sources
(in spite of the fact that wood and biomass are the most conventional
of
energy sources). The funding was very little in comparison to the benefit
to
the society.

PSA insert:  how much was "very little" funding? 
What amounts of funding are needed for what types of projects? 

AD continues:
We have six designs of mud stoves (singlepot/double pot, with
chimney/without chimney, with grate/without grate, etc.), all having
boiling
and evaporation efficiency of 25% and more, so that they guarantee 50%
fuel
saving. We have evolved molds for them, so that they can be mass
produced
without any change in their dimensions.  We have recently introduced
the
same models, made by using cement concrete, so that the durability
has
increased to about 5 years. About 50 potters trained by us are
collectively
selling annually about 150,000 of these stoves in our state
(Maharashtra,
India) and collectively earning (gross income) annually about Rs.25
million
(about half a million US$). Many of them have their children
attending
colleges, thanks to the extra money earned (needless to say that
the
children would not be making and selling mud stoves).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of AD's message
>>>>>>>>

Paul continues: 
Each of the 50 potters (or are there several people who work together to
be like a "potters family to include efforts for selling, etc")
produces about 3000 per year, about 60 per week or 10-12 per
day.      (please check my math; but I think I
have calculated correctly.  )

And each of the 50 potters has an average GROSS income of US$10,000.00
per year (about $830 per month), but then subtract the materials costs,
etc.

And each stove sells for about $3.33 each.  

Thus, we have the THREE-DOLLAR STOVE, of which some are less expensive or
more expensive, depending on features    (singlepot/double
pot, with chimney/without chimney, with grate/without grate, etc.),

Quite impressive, producing 150,000 per year.  Where else do we see
such success?  The China information (previous messages on this list
serve) also has BIG numbers. 

Anybody else with tens of thousands of "installations".

BUT, on the down side, if the world could use about a BILLION stoves with
reasonable improvements to serve the needy populations, then the
impressive production in India would still need over SIX THOUSAND YEARS
to meet the need, not counting replacements.  

Triple the production to 500,000 per year, and reduce in half the target
to 500,000,000 and it will still take 1000 years.

############

My friends, I am stunned by what I have just written.  I stare at my
computer screen and think of the billions and billions of dollars that
America is starting to spend to fight people who mainly do not have a
decent stove on which to cook tonight's meal.

No wonder they hate us !!  

I am not a pacifist, and I would not be upset with the killing of a few
thousand terrorists.  But in the end, it is possible that even more
people will hate us.

Enough writing for the moment.   Sorry if I again outstepped
the bounds of what the Stoves listserve is to accomplish.

Paul
#########################

At 10:37 PM 9/20/01 -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
Paul:

This is to support the offer
of Dr. Priya and to thank you for your offer to financially support
this.  As 10-15 of us on this list were able to be in Pune about 11
months ago, we can perhaps set your mind at ease by answering a few of
the questions below:
---Priyadarshini,    
(Are you the person known as AD Karve, as in your second e-mail address
above?  I want to make sure that I am addressing you correctly.)

(RWL):  Dr. Priya is the daughter of Dr. AD.  I suspect you
will get two for the price of one and both are exceptionally
talented.  They have been the Indian "operators" of the
Indian Improved stoves program in the Maharashtra state which was written
up in the UN pamphlet that I forwarded information about today.

Hello,

I first want to accept your offer of assistance.  As a MINIMUM I
pledge US$250 to this project.  At 10 hours per week and $1.00 per
hour, that is almost 6 months of work.  Here are several
considerations for which we need some discussion and agreement.

1.  Are you a Rotarian?  (Do you have contact or can you
establish contact with Rotarians in Pune?)   (By the way, are
others on the Stoves listserve Rotarians besides Crispin and me?)

(RWL):  Not me.  But Pune is a huge city -
takes more than an hour to get across by jitney.  Has to be several
Rotary clubs there. There is a statue of a famous Karve (grandfather of
AD?) in the center of the city - famous for starting a well known
University there (for women?)  The Karves will have many prominent
local connections.
<snip>

3.  The desired end results should be considered now at the
beginning, and I hope that Ron and others with long understanding of the
Stoves listserve archives will give guidance.
(RWL):   I think we can get lots of help from this list - and I
will certainly contribute.  See especially my final paragraph.

4.  I suggest that a trial run be conducted for finding and sharing
the available archived information about one or two significant topics,
such as:

        A. 
ACTUAL stove designs, including specifications for construction.

        B. 
QUANTITATIVE data about stove performances, including specifications of
the nature of the "test" conducted.

        C. 
The issue of biomass briquettes with HOLES, either by manufacture or by
"configuration" of fuel-pieces to product hole effects.

        

    <SNIP>

Thanks for listening.

Paul      (the map guy)
.
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice:  309-438-7360; 
FAX:  309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

 

(RWL):   Thanks again to both Priya and Paul. 

The only modification I would make to your proposed organization structure is to consider bringing Alex English in to the operation.  He unfortunately says too little on this list, but he has a great deal to offer, understands and has organized the stove material already on his web site, is obviously respected and liked by both Karves,  has the most experience of our whole group outside India on the ARTI organization, and is excellent with producing and understanding experiments.  He also has recently guided a student in Canada and is a computer whiz himself.  He is probably too busy and may be too modest to accept - but I still urge pressuring Alex to come in as well.

Ron
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice:  309-438-7360;  FAX:  309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Fri Sep 21 15:08:52 2001
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: GH emissions from biomass V.S. fossil fuel
Message-ID: <6c.10547bac.28dce93e@aol.com>

Dear Biofriends,
It has been argued that biomass, burned as it presently is, is more
greenhouse gas polluting than the current level of technology for fossil
fuels. Let's blow a hole in this argument. Start with the oil fires of
Kuwait, clean burning? Witness combustion at about the same level of
technology as charcoal production around the world! Build a fire, and then
smother it. OK?
Oil for example, has only been REFINED and burned in efficient, clean
devices for a short while. Most of the research for this was done during
wartime with the war effort providing a ready market and funds for the new
technology. The latest technology was developed with funds derived from
sales of huge quantities of oil burning in less efficient devises for years.
I think the fossil fuel producers should pay us, by their logic, to
remove the pollution they emitted, and recall their dangerous products which
make people kill for and with them. All that money among so few people. I
can think this way too.
What do you think the people on this list could do with the billions of
research dollars which have been spent on learning clean oil burning? What
if, to compare apples to apples, we burn crude oil, and wood, in the same
rated efficiency stove, and see where we are at with emissions. What? The oil
has to be refined? OK then, let's compare #1 fuel oil, or gasoline, to wood
derived methanol. Who wins the emissions battle then? I can burn methanol in
a metal bucket of sand with nearly no emissions. How about charcoal compared
to coke. Same amount of processing.
The difference is, trees will grow forever, I have never seen an oil well
produce new oil once drained. I'll wait and see if anybody has drilled one of
those yet, I'll invest.
The fuel we burn is by nature, going to be converted to METHANE, CO2, and
CO anyhow. Witness termite emissions of these gasses. What do they think
happens to biomass otherwise? It naturally adds background to the fossil fuel
emissions. So all we have to do is to burn it cleaner than what it ROTS
into, and we produce a net loss of methane emissions, in exchange for very
little CO2, mostly water! Now, do your math again. Everyone is pushing for
hydrogen because it is so clean, what is methane anyhow? What percentage of
cellulose IS hydrogen?
Another argument I hear, is that we will deplete the worlds forests.
NO ! ! Wrong again!
We will provide the incentive to replant the worlds forests. The only
significant product other than biomass which gives this incentive, is lumber.
Beware of fossil fuel hype and learn these arguments well. If everybody
on these lists would talk enthusiastically about the potential of biomass to
10 people, them they would tell 10 people, and so on. What power of ten do
you need for your political argument? If you whisper like we are on to
something big and you hate to let it out,(which is true by the way) it seems
to lubricate the process. How about that guy that turns human waste into
gasoline? WOW!
We don't need lies to promote our fuels. Just the facts outsold (or maybe
quiet).
Forward, always Forward,
Daniel Dimiduk
Shangri-La Research and Development Co.....
Dayton, Ohio, USA

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Fri Sep 21 17:15:18 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: Briquette production rates
Message-ID: <002001c1427d$594c4380$44e80fc4@home>

Dear Richard

I will concentrate on this issue because today we did a sort of production
run on the 9-per-time. I wonder if it is OK to write 9/time instead.
Easier to type.

>A 6 person team about one press typically knocks out 500 of the
>4" dia x 3 in tall briquettes per 6 hr day ...

OK. This is about 83 pieces each. Each one has a volume of about 617 cm^3
minus the hole which at 1 inch is 39cm^3 = 580 cm^3 or 0.6 litres of
biomass. That amounts to 83 x 0.6 = 50 litres of product per person per
day.

I presume with that press you are getting a final density of about 0.25
yes?? so they would weight 150 grammes each. How close is that guess? It
would then be 12.5 Kg per person per day.

Today I mixed 700 gm of newspaper with 2.6 kg (dry mass) of pine sawdust. I
then produced 5 sets of 9 briquettes. That is 45 briquettes of average
67x67x50mm with a 20mm hole in each. The final weight should be an average
of 73 gm each.

They are about 210 Cm^3 each and I got a total volume of 9.4 litres. The
density is 0.35 assuming I did not lose anything in the wash water (which I
did). They are still wet so I can't get a total final dry mass yet.

I was working with an extremely cumbersome make-shift rig that can reproduce
the motions that will be in the final (manual) pressing process. For
example after putting the charged mould into the pressing device I have to
put a 12mm plate in front of it, another one behind it, two 50mm square bar
spacers, two 6mm spacers behind that and then two angle iron 'L's at the top
because the thing I was pressing against wasn't made square. Then I pressed
it, released, removed all the bits mentioned above, and pressed it again to
eject the briquettes. Then I muscle the (very heavy steel prototype) rig
out of the temporary pressing rig and to take off the stripper plate with
the finished product and lift off the briquettes 3 at a time.

Together with the pressing process it took about six minutes to load the
gunk in, make sure it was evenly distributed, press and eject and remove the
product. Keeping busy I would be able to make 12 x 9 = 108 briquettes per
hour with that method or 648 per 6 hour day for a total dry weight of 47.5
Kg.

Let us assume that it takes two people just as long to prepare the mixture I
can use in 6 minutes. So I am giving three people the day to make about 648
Kg of product each at the rate I was working. We would produce 16 Kg/day
each with that cumbersome method.

Next, it is my intention to make a manual pressing device that will
accomplish the pressing and ejecting operation in 1 minute, but using 3
people. I will have 3 people preparing material, 1 person filling, 2
pressing in a sequence, 1 ejecting and 1 taking away. We should get 9 x 60
briquettes per hour or about 2700 per 5 hour shift (we will use 5 hour
shifts). This is about 200 Kg of dry product per shift from 8 people or 25
Kg per person. That is what I am aiming for.

It looks like the pressing will be quite fast and that the filling will be
the choke point. With two fillers on 60 second intervals feeding pressers
working at 30 second intervals, we should be able to get 33+ Kg per person
per day through. It is 4500 units per shift. Running 2 shifts of 5 hrs (as
planned) we might get out the 10,000 per day required. That is 3/4 of a
ton.

If the briquettes are sold for the value of electricity and it is true that
they have 18 MJ/Kg then 12 people would be packaging 13,2 GJ per day.
Electricity is E0.34 here (about $0.04) per KWH or E0.0944/MJ. That is
E1250 ($145) worth of heat. Even sold for half price it is definitely a GO!

It is, however, nowhere near the cost of coal - or should I say
inexpensiveness - which is why field testing with an efficient stove is
important to see which actually costs more to run from start to finish.

That is enough for now.

Regards to all
Crispin

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Fri Sep 21 18:05:36 2001
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: GH emissions from biomass V.S. fossil fuel
In-Reply-To: <6c.10547bac.28dce93e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3BABB8BC.C311A882@legacyfound.org>

Daniel.
Your arguement is not loud enough !. Let me add another dimension to
fortify it.
With briquetted biomass briquettes in use now in a host of developing
nations, the fact is that using non woody biomass, one realises a sustained
'person-/ Hectare (=2.4 acres) fuel carrying capacity of between 25 and
96 persons per Hectare depending upon the biomass in question. As compared
to this same population, we calculate a maximum of  5 persons per
Hectare --at that, drawing upon wood from a managed woodlot of hot Eucalyptus
globulus wood on a 9 yr rotation. With all the energy of oil, what is their
carrying capacity per sustained use(ie., including area / time to allow
for regeneration ?
Anybody have a figure for sustainable oil offtake for use in its optimum
form for cooking and heating--- including teh oil regernation rate ?
Richard Stanley

 

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Fri Sep 21 18:21:06 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: Secondary Air by natural convection.
In-Reply-To: <131.1aba83c.28d7119a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00b501c142e5$d4971660$d5d11ac4@jmdavies>

 

Dear gentlemen,
The quest to introduce secondary air by natural convection is
foremost in my planned experiments.

What I do know is that a chimney only produces a few
millimetres watergauge of reduced pressure per unit of height. I have lost the
reference, and forget the figure.

If the pipes intended to introduce air just below the pot, and
the chimney effect ended at the pot, it is possible that the air flow
resistance through the pipe might have been higher than the negative pressure
difference available. Another possibility is that if the air is cold and it had
to be drawn upwards,  is that the air column is too dense to be lifted.by
the small depression available. I am only guessing, as I do not know the details
of the experiment.

I would appreciate more details of you failures, in order
to better evaluate my own ideas. I have an idea of placing a sealed chimney
above the burning coals to create a draft, which would be strong enough to
suck in heated secondary air at the top surface of the coals. The aim is to
completely combust the pyrolysis gas emitted from a "top lit" coal bed, with the
glowing coals as an ignition source. I propose starting with a chimney height of
about 6 ft.

This combustion system is used in the steam locomotive with
the aid of an ejector in the chimney. Experiments showed that a suction above
the coal bed on a miniature locomotive, of 1 cm water gauge, was sufficient to
draw enough air to combust the evolving gas, at a burning rate which far exceeds
that of a stove. Good mixing of the air and gas is also necessary. It will
be difficult to achieve the ideal turbulent mixing, with such low
pressures. I do not think that the gas velocities in a stove are high
enough to create a ventury effect, so we have to rely on a vacuum created by the
chimney effect. 

I would be happy to share the results of my experiments. I
imagine that a water manometer should be the main measuring apparatus with any
natural convection experiments. Any ideas of other simple measuring devices
which could provide useful data will be appreciated.

Yours sincerely,
John Davies.



<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
Subject: Re: Needed research

Dear Vernon,
we too are working on stove designs that would
provide secondary air to the burning biomass, without having to use a blower.
From that point of view, we are interested in knowing even about
your failures, so that we avoid making the same mistakes. One of our
failures consisted of introducing into the stove firebox a set of tubes,
which were supposed to draw outside air and introduce it into the flame.
We expected this device to make use of the ventury effect of the air current
going from the grate towards the pot. The air of course had no intention
of doing anything of this sort. 
A.D.Karve 

<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
In a message dated
09/16/2001 10:27:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, <A
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net">ronallarson@qwest.net writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"
TYPE="CITE">   I strongly agree with Tom that we need to
find ways to better mix the secondary air and pyrolysis gases under
natural convection conditions.   I have unsuccessfully tried a
few geometries to achieve mixing before ignition. Messages from Alex
English may provide some leads.  (Alex? Tom?)  <FONT
color=#000000 face=Arial lang=0 size=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF">

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Sep 22 02:27:33 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (New Dawn Engineering / ATEX)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: Aren't wood stoves carbon dioxide-neutral?
Message-ID: <004b01c1432f$daf815a0$0100007f@am29>

Dear Tami

I hope I can make a useful contribution here. I liked your

You note:
>1. If cuts are made to [black carbon] only, and not to CO2, we will still
>accumulate atmospheric [greenhouse gasses], and might be stuck with the
need for
>quick reductions that I described earlier.

In terms of CO2, is it not true that biomass (wood, leaves and woody stems)
are CO2-neutral in terms of greenhouse effects?

The vast majority of wood burning stoves (which covers a heck of a lot of
Africa's cooking) don't add any CO2 to the atmosphere that didn't come from
the atmosphere in the first place. It seems to me that bio-fuel stoves
don't have any net effect on GHG at all unless they are creating novel
compounds in the combustion process that do not occur naturally when the
biomass either breaks down into methane (a bad GHG dude) or are burned once
dead.

It is my understanding that the Brazilian rain forest is CO2 and
Oxygen-neutral as well, though it is probably a net producer of methane.

It is interesting to think of the wood/charcoal stove emissions on their own
but it is important to keep tied to the same paragraph the understanding
that the stoves are not emitting anything that would not have already been
emitted naturally, and which originated in the atmosphere. It seems unfair
to ask developing countries to reduce emissions that were already there
naturally (i.e. go against nature) and then compare them with other regions
that are primarily burning fossil fuels. There is no fair comparison to
make, in my view.

The future of wood stoves is very bright. They will be hot items in future
centuries because they do useful work and have essentially no effect on the
climate.

If this view is incorrect, it would have to have something to do with the
products of combustion that are created by the special conditions prevailing
inside a stove as opposed to outside it. I think there are far fewer
emissions from a good wood stove than there are from wild fires, forest
fires and veldt fires. Not so?

It seems unreasonable to ask some developing countries to do much about CO2
when, on balance, they may not put much (net) into the air at all. Coal
burning countries like the US and China have much to worry about but not
wood burning ones.

A callous interpretation of the partnership request would be for undeveloped
countries to remain undeveloped/poor as 'doing their part' for Kyoto related
goals. I have considered advising the Swaziland government to put a theme
park ticket office at the Ngwenya Border Post and changing the the country's
name to 'Disney Kraal' but it wouldn't go down to well with the local
population who aspire to more than being specimens in an energy zoo: "Look
ma! They don't leave no atmospheric footprints!" :)

According to our present Energy Policy green paper, our national consumption
of fossil fuels (petroleum-based) is 75 liters per capita per year. Petra
Lasschuit (Univ. Amsterdam) says 70% of our energy consumption is from
carbon-neutral biomass. It is difficult to create much feeling for
'partnership' (other than lip service) with the developed countries given
the vast differences in the respective contributions to the problem. It is
difficult to tighten your belt when it is already tight around your spine.

I really appreciate your taking the time to explain the emissions issues. I
am still wondering what TOA and GWP mean.

Regards
Crispin

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From Tami.Bond at noaa.gov Sat Sep 22 04:44:42 2001
From: Tami.Bond at noaa.gov (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: GH, fossil, biomass-- Whoa!
Message-ID: <448bd491b2.491b2448bd@pmel.noaa.gov>

Dan and other friends,

Hold on a minute!

Dan, first let me say how much I have appreciated your intensely
practical messages lately. I will write more on that, and respond to
the GCC questions people have posted, this weekend. Sorry I have
delayed my answers, but sometimes other things have to come first.

You make some good points, which I interpret as:
1. The reason fossil fuels can be burned cleanly is because they are
distilled into more pure components, and therefore can be controlled &
mixed with air in precisely the right proportion, etc. What a great
insight!
2. If the money spent on fossil fuels had been spent on biomass, it
would be clean too. I hope we are getting there! (To the 'clean', I
mean-- I know the fossil money has been staggering.)
3. There will be some greenhouse gases from wood-rot anyway, esp.
methane-- maybe we call these PIOs, products of incomplete oxidation. I
didn't count that offset (and neither did K. Smith, so I need to go
research that.) Does decomposing biomass make CO?

And of course, biomass is a "renewable" resource. I never meant to
dispute that, or to argue that we *should* switch from biomass to
fossil fuels. I did suggest that most people, at the household-decision
level, will not switch from fossil back to biomass-- but this I believe
to be a perception issue rather than an issue of what people "ought" to
do. Make the biostove the next hip thing, and maybe that will change.
Do you disagree-- that is, do you think that the average family who has
already switched to kerosene or propane, would switch back to a wood
stove? (Coal might be an exception-- if *those* people had wood to
burn, I think they would. What do you think?)

> Another argument I hear, is that we will deplete the worlds
> forests.

I don't argue that. Maybe other people do, but I am guessing most
people on this list are in favor of sustainable harvesting, as well as
the efficient burning of biomass to help in that effort.

I do stand by the following point: Kirk Smith's measurements show that
per MJ of energy delivered, the global warming potential (GWP) of
biomass AS BURNED was higher than the GWP of kerosene burning. [I
didn't include the fact that the lowest GWP he found was from biogas.
Now *there's* a way to go.]

*Does that mean that everyone should switch from biomass to fossil
fuels?*
NO, it just means that biomass should be more cleanly burned, because
you are absolutely right-- WHEN cleanly burned, it will have a lower
GWP than fossil fuels. The clean-burning process needs some work, and
this list is helping! And of course, there is a whole *list* of
societal and economic benefits from sustainability-- energy security,
price stability, etc. I did not mention those in the GCC message
because I calculated only the potential dollars from a carbon-trading
standpoint. There is a great difference between the actual benefit of a
technology and what somebody would be willing to pay for it--
especially somebody narrowly focused, as a carbon-trader might have to
be. My point was only that a dirty stove emits things that a carbon-
trader *ought* to be willing to pay for, and that a clean stove could
be bought with the money. And that the narrow focus on CO2 makes it so
that carbon-traders might not be interested in changing clean stoves
for dirty ones-- which is a mistake, in my opinion.

*Does that mean that we should 'stick it to' developing countries
because they are contributing to climate change thru dirty burning?*
HECK NO, not in my book, anyway. That would be hypocritical, unfair and
impractical. But I do think that if they are able to distribute truly
improved stoves-- which is a lot cheaper than trying to cut their
meager CO2 emissions, and better for their health to boot-- then
industrialized countries ought to give them credit for cleaning up,
instead of whining about how they have to do all the emission cuts.

*Is biofuel burning all good?*
NO; if it is totally good, why are so many people trying to improve
stoves, why are so many people sick from it, why is the air even in
U.S. campgrounds eye-stinging when full of woodsmoke? With the right
stove and the right burning process, it can be a great and completely
sustainable energy source. It should get a lot of research focus. But I
cannot say, based on the evidence, that ANY biofuel use is better than
ANY fossil use. SOME kinds of biofuel use are better than ANY possible
fossil use-- and we are all looking for how to get to that SOME.

Yours,

Tami

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From crispin at newdawn.sz Sat Sep 22 05:35:37 2001
From: crispin at newdawn.sz (New Dawn Engineering / ATEX)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: Paraffin Water Heaters
Message-ID: <005401c1434a$22ebbc80$0100007f@am29>

Dear Stovers

Richard wrote:
>Your noted water heater application of the draft effect
>sounds ingenious though.

You could look upon forced air as a substitute for a tall chimney. The fire
doesn't know the difference.

If you burn paraffin in the 'open' it is fine as a lamp or perhaps running a
model Stirling Engine. If you want significant amounts of heat from it you
have two choices: use a massive wick spread over a large surface, or force a
lot of air past it.

The South African invention uses the tall chimney to achieve a blast of air.
The paraffin is in a cup-sized container. perhaps 1/3 of a litre. The wick
looks like a very very fat string. The cup can swing out from under the
vertical tube on a pin hinge. This allows the cup to be refilled easily.
The air is drawn through either a short gap like the rocket stoves secondary
air inlet or else a ring of vertical slits perhaps 25mm high.

I don't understand what was patented by the guy in Nelspruit about the air
admission. Perhaps it allows for a limited amount of secondary air. I
couldn't see anything special about it. The holes were a different shape.
They all work well and are very thrifty.

The main problem with them is that they pretty much have to be made from
stainless steel which is always more expensive to work with. I expect they
will have to be 'de-coked' from time to time as paraffin is not a very clean
burning fuel, most times.

Regards
Crispin

 

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From tombreed at home.com Sat Sep 22 06:23:24 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: GH, fossil, biomass-- Whoa!
In-Reply-To: <448bd491b2.491b2448bd@pmel.noaa.gov>
Message-ID: <000801c1434a$78e1f640$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

 

Dear Tami:

You are close to right when you say that fossil ENERGY SOURCES
(petroleum) have been distilled to make clean FOSSIL FUELS.

And also when you say that we should do the same for
biomass.  And a major step in that direction is "Densification" - make all
biomass into pellets or briquettes so that it doens't matter what the source is
- wood, straw, paper, ag residues.

One additional problem is that when you "distill" biomass you
get 75% volatiles that burn very well under one set of conditions... and
charcoal that requires very different conditions.  It's hard to make ONE
stove that burns BOTH fuels well....

But we're working on it.

Yours truly,       
TOM
REED



Dr. Thomas
Reed  The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO
80401303 278 0558; <FONT
size=2>tombreed@home.com; <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tami Bond" <<A
href="mailto:Tami.Bond@noaa.gov">Tami.Bond@noaa.gov<FONT
size=2>>
To: <<FONT
size=2>stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: GH, fossil, biomass-- Whoa!
> Dan and other friends,
> > Hold on a minute!> > Dan, first let me say how
much I have appreciated your intensely > practical messages lately. I
will write more on that, and respond to > the GCC questions people have
posted, this weekend. Sorry I have > delayed my answers, but sometimes
other things have to come first.> > You make some good points,
which I interpret as:> 1. The reason fossil fuels can be burned cleanly
is because they are > distilled into more pure components, and therefore
can be controlled & > mixed with air in precisely the right
proportion, etc. What a great > insight! > 2. If the money spent
on fossil fuels had been spent on biomass, it > would be clean too. I
hope we are getting there! (To the 'clean', I > mean-- I know the fossil
money has been staggering.)> 3. There will be some greenhouse gases from
wood-rot anyway, esp. > methane-- maybe we call these PIOs, products of
incomplete oxidation. I > didn't count that offset (and neither did K.
Smith, so I need to go > research that.) Does decomposing biomass make
CO?> > And of course, biomass is a "renewable" resource. I never
meant to > dispute that, or to argue that we *should* switch from biomass
to > fossil fuels. I did suggest that most people, at the
household-decision > level, will not switch from fossil back to biomass--
but this I believe > to be a perception issue rather than an issue of
what people "ought" to > do. Make the biostove the next hip thing, and
maybe that will change. > Do you disagree-- that is, do you think that
the average family who has > already switched to kerosene or propane,
would switch back to a wood > stove? (Coal might be an exception-- if
*those* people had wood to > burn, I think they would. What do you
think?)> > >    Another argument I hear, is that
we will deplete the worlds > > forests. > > I don't
argue that. Maybe other people do, but I am guessing most > people on
this list are in favor of sustainable harvesting, as well as > the
efficient burning of biomass to help in that effort.> > I do stand
by the following point: Kirk Smith's measurements show that > per MJ of
energy delivered, the global warming potential (GWP) of > biomass AS
BURNED was higher than the GWP of kerosene burning. [I > didn't include
the fact that the lowest GWP he found was from biogas. > Now *there's* a
way to go.]> > *Does that mean that everyone should switch from
biomass to fossil > fuels?*> NO, it just means that biomass should
be more cleanly burned, because > you are absolutely right-- WHEN cleanly
burned, it will have a lower > GWP than fossil fuels. The clean-burning
process needs some work, and > this list is helping! And of course, there
is a whole *list* of > societal and economic benefits from
sustainability-- energy security, > price stability, etc. I did not
mention those in the GCC message > because I calculated only the
potential dollars from a carbon-trading > standpoint. There is a great
difference between the actual benefit of a > technology and what somebody
would be willing to pay for it-- > especially somebody narrowly focused,
as a carbon-trader might have to > be. My point was only that a dirty
stove emits things that a carbon-> trader *ought* to be willing to pay
for, and that a clean stove could > be bought with the money. And that
the narrow focus on CO2 makes it so > that carbon-traders might not be
interested in changing clean stoves > for dirty ones-- which is a
mistake, in my opinion.> > *Does that mean that we should 'stick
it to' developing countries > because they are contributing to climate
change thru dirty burning?*> HECK NO, not in my book, anyway. That would
be hypocritical, unfair and > impractical. But I do think that if they
are able to distribute truly > improved stoves-- which is a lot cheaper
than trying to cut their > meager CO2 emissions, and better for their
health to boot-- then > industrialized countries ought to give them
credit for cleaning up, > instead of whining about how they have to do
all the emission cuts. > > *Is biofuel burning all good?*>
NO; if it is totally good, why are so many people trying to improve >
stoves, why are so many people sick from it, why is the air even in >
U.S. campgrounds eye-stinging when full of woodsmoke? With the right >
stove and the right burning process, it can be a great and completely >
sustainable energy source. It should get a lot of research focus. But I >
cannot say, based on the evidence, that ANY biofuel use is better than >
ANY fossil use. SOME kinds of biofuel use are better than ANY possible >
fossil use-- and we are all looking for how to get to that SOME.>
> Yours, > > Tami> > > >
> -> Stoves List Archives and Website:> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/<FONT
size=2>> <A
href="http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html<FONT
size=2>> > Stoves List Moderators:> Ron Larson, <A
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net"><FONT
size=2>ronallarson@qwest.net> Alex English,
<FONT
size=2>english@adan.kingston.net> Elsen L.
Karstad, <FONT
size=2>elk@wananchi.com <A
href="http://www.chardust.com">www.chardust.com<FONT
size=2>> > List-Post: <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"><FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves@crest.org>> List-Help:
<<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>>
List-Unsubscribe: <<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
List-Subscribe: <<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
-> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:> <A
href="http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/"><FONT
size=2>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/<FONT
size=2>> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml"><FONT
size=2>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml<FONT
size=2>> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES> <A
href="http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm<FONT
size=2>>

From tombreed at home.com Sat Sep 22 06:29:48 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: Paraffin Water Heaters
In-Reply-To: <005401c1434a$22ebbc80$0100007f@am29>
Message-ID: <001701c1434b$5b9febe0$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

 

Dear Stovers:

Richard is correct about a natural draft chimney being like
forced draft.  Let's get quantitative.

1 foot of chimney filled with hot gas gives a draft of 0.01 in
of water (excuse US units (no longet British!).

Our 3 Watt blower on our Turbo WoodGas stove gives a pressure
of 0.15 in of water pressure, equivalent to a 15 foot chimney and 3 kW of
intense heat!  3 Watts is a small price to pay for modern cooking with
biomass. 

I worked on natural draft from 1985-98 and gave
up.

Yours truly,       
TOM
REED


Dr. Thomas
Reed  The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO
80401303 278 0558; <FONT
size=2>tombreed@home.com; <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "New Dawn Engineering / ATEX" <<A
href="mailto:crispin@newdawn.sz">crispin@newdawn.sz<FONT
size=2>>
To: "Stoves" <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org<FONT
size=2>>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 12:30 AM
Subject: Paraffin Water Heaters
> Dear Stovers>
> Richard wrote:> >Your noted water heater application of the
draft effect> >sounds ingenious though.> > You could
look upon forced air as a substitute for a tall chimney.  The fire>
doesn't know the difference.> > If you burn paraffin in the 'open'
it is fine as a lamp or perhaps running a> model Stirling Engine. 
If you want significant amounts of heat from it you> have two choices:
use a massive wick spread over a large surface, or force a> lot of air
past it.> > The South African invention uses the tall chimney to
achieve a blast of air.> The paraffin is in a cup-sized container.
perhaps 1/3 of a litre.  The wick> looks like a very very fat
string.  The cup can swing out from under the> vertical tube on a
pin hinge.  This allows the cup to be refilled easily.> The air is
drawn through either a short gap like the rocket stoves secondary> air
inlet or else a ring of vertical slits perhaps 25mm high.> > I
don't understand what was patented by the guy in Nelspruit about the air>
admission.  Perhaps it allows for a limited amount of secondary air. 
I> couldn't see anything special about it.  The holes were a
different shape.> They all work well and are very thrifty.>
> The main problem with them is that they pretty much have to be made
from> stainless steel which is always more expensive to work with. 
I expect they> will have to be 'de-coked' from time to time as paraffin
is not a very clean> burning fuel, most times.> >
Regards> Crispin> > > > -> Stoves List
Archives and Website:> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/<FONT
size=2>> <A
href="http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html<FONT
size=2>> > Stoves List Moderators:> Ron Larson, <A
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net"><FONT
size=2>ronallarson@qwest.net> Alex English,
<FONT
size=2>english@adan.kingston.net> Elsen L.
Karstad, <FONT
size=2>elk@wananchi.com <A
href="http://www.chardust.com">www.chardust.com<FONT
size=2>> > List-Post: <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"><FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves@crest.org>> List-Help:
<<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>>
List-Unsubscribe: <<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
List-Subscribe: <<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
-> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:> <A
href="http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/"><FONT
size=2>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/<FONT
size=2>> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml"><FONT
size=2>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml<FONT
size=2>> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES> <A
href="http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm<FONT
size=2>>

From tombreed at home.com Sat Sep 22 07:09:36 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: Briquette production rates
In-Reply-To: <002001c1427d$594c4380$44e80fc4@home>
Message-ID: <003301c14350$e21bc540$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

 

Dear Crispin Paul and All:

Your briquettes with a density of 0.25 are a major improvement
over miscellaneous biomass with a density of 0.05-0.15 and I congratulate you
and others here on making them using very simple machines. 

However, keep in mind that commercial densification machines
produce pellets from very lousy biomass (like peanut shells, rice
hulls, bagasse, sawdust, paper,  MSW and ....) that have a density of
>1.0 (easily tested by dropping in water and watching it sink. 

           

~~~~~~~~~
When I read your note I was reminded of the wisdom of the
observation  that "ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny".  ("Ontology and Phylogeny" is a book by Stephen Jay
Gould that I haven't read, but I have sure admired others of his.)

That's a mouthful, so let's let Webster clarify:

Ontogeny:  The history of the development of an
individual organism

Phylogeny:  The history of the development of a species
or group of related organisms

Applied to the development of the species, the human embryo
passes through the stages of one celled organism,  fishes, frogs... 
to humans.



~~~~
Applied to densification, various briquetting machines will
eventually become current and improved densification machines making
> 10 kg of pellets/cubes (with holes?) per hp-hr.  The
developed nations have passed through that stage already with cubers, loggers
and pelletizers. 

The only problem is capital (> $100,000 for a 10 ton/day
factory) and power (typical requirement 100 hp per machine).  I have
visited various densification plants with 1-5 machines making enough fuel to
cook for the average nation!  

So somehow we need to encourage the developed nations to
install these machines that will decrease greenhouse gases, poverty and
malnutrition at the plantations around the world wasting the ag residues that
come from all food.  We hope they will realize that terror and wars arise
with desparate people who haven't yet solved these problems.

Yours
truly,            
TOM REED           
BEF


Dr. Thomas
Reed  The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO
80401303 278 0558; <FONT
size=2>tombreed@home.com; <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin" <<A
href="mailto:crispin@newdawn.sz">crispin@newdawn.sz<FONT
size=2>>
To: "Stoves" <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org<FONT
size=2>>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:09 AM
Subject: Briquette production rates
> Dear Richard>
> I will concentrate on this issue because today we did a sort of
production> run on the 9-per-time.  I wonder if it is OK to write
9/time instead.> Easier to type.> > >A  6 person
team about one press typically knocks out 500 of the> >4" dia x 3 in
tall briquettes per 6 hr day ...> > OK. This is about 83 pieces
each.  Each one has a volume of about 617 cm^3> minus the hole which
at 1 inch is 39cm^3 = 580 cm^3 or 0.6 litres of> biomass.  That
amounts to 83 x 0.6 = 50 litres of product per person per> day.>
> I presume with that press you are getting a final density of about
0.25> yes?? so they would weight 150 grammes each.  How close is
that guess?  It> would then be 12.5 Kg per person per day.>
> Today I mixed 700 gm of newspaper with 2.6 kg (dry mass) of pine
sawdust.  I> then produced 5 sets of 9 briquettes.  That is 45
briquettes of average> 67x67x50mm with a 20mm hole in each.  The
final weight should be an average> of 73 gm each.> > They
are about 210 Cm^3 each and I got a total volume of 9.4 litres. 
The> density is 0.35 assuming I did not lose anything in the wash water
(which I> did).  They are still wet so I can't get a total final dry
mass yet.> > I was working with an extremely cumbersome make-shift
rig that can reproduce> the motions that will be in the final (manual)
pressing process.  For> example after putting the charged mould into
the pressing device I have to> put a 12mm plate in front of it, another
one behind it, two 50mm square bar> spacers, two 6mm spacers behind that
and then two angle iron 'L's at the top> because the thing I was pressing
against wasn't made square.  Then I pressed> it, released, removed
all the bits mentioned above, and pressed it again to> eject the
briquettes. Then I  muscle the (very heavy steel prototype) rig> out
of the temporary pressing rig and to take off the stripper plate with>
the finished product and lift off the briquettes 3 at a time.> >
Together with the pressing process it took about six minutes to load the>
gunk in, make sure it was evenly distributed, press and eject and remove
the> product.  Keeping busy I would be able to make 12 x 9 = 108
briquettes per> hour with that method or 648 per 6 hour day for a total
dry weight of 47.5> Kg.> > Let us assume that it takes two
people just as long to prepare the mixture I> can use in 6 minutes. 
So I am giving three people the day to make about 648> Kg of product each
at the rate I was working.  We would produce 16 Kg/day> each with
that cumbersome method.> > Next, it is my intention to make a
manual pressing device that will> accomplish the pressing and ejecting
operation in 1 minute, but using 3> people.  I will have 3 people
preparing material, 1 person filling, 2> pressing in a sequence, 1
ejecting and 1 taking away.  We should get 9 x 60> briquettes per
hour or about 2700 per 5 hour shift (we will use 5 hour> shifts). 
This is about 200 Kg of dry product per shift from 8 people or 25> Kg per
person.  That is what I am aiming for.> > It looks like the
pressing will be quite fast and that the filling will be> the choke
point.  With two fillers on 60 second intervals feeding pressers>
working at 30 second intervals, we should be able to get 33+ Kg per
person> per day through.  It is 4500 units per shift.  Running
2 shifts of 5 hrs (as> planned) we might get out the 10,000 per day
required.  That is 3/4 of a> ton.> > If the briquettes
are sold for the value of electricity and it is true that> they have 18
MJ/Kg then 12 people would be packaging 13,2 GJ per day.> Electricity is
E0.34 here (about $0.04) per KWH or E0.0944/MJ.  That is> E1250
($145) worth of heat.  Even sold for half price it is definitely a
GO!> > It is, however, nowhere near the cost of coal - or should I
say> inexpensiveness - which is why field testing with an efficient stove
is> important to see which actually costs more to run from start to
finish.> > That is enough for now.> > Regards to
all> Crispin> > > -> Stoves List Archives and
Website:> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/<FONT
size=2>> <A
href="http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html<FONT
size=2>> > Stoves List Moderators:> Ron Larson, <A
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net"><FONT
size=2>ronallarson@qwest.net> Alex English,
<FONT
size=2>english@adan.kingston.net> Elsen L.
Karstad, <FONT
size=2>elk@wananchi.com <A
href="http://www.chardust.com">www.chardust.com<FONT
size=2>> > List-Post: <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org"><FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves@crest.org>> List-Help:
<<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>>
List-Unsubscribe: <<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
List-Subscribe: <<FONT
size=2>mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>>
> Sponsor the Stoves List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
-> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:> <A
href="http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/"><FONT
size=2>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/<FONT
size=2>> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml"><FONT
size=2>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml<FONT
size=2>> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES> <A
href="http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm<FONT
size=2>>

From tombreed at home.com Sat Sep 22 08:15:16 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:37:08 2004
Subject: Stoves-Archives Project--Expansion???
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010918121254.00e30920@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <006401c14359$e227e420$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

 

Dear Paul, Karves and All:

A good start would be to publish the proceedings of the Pune
Conference last year.  Lots of great papers there, I'd be happy to help
edit and publish.  

- or did this already happen and I missed
it?

TOM REED

Dr. Thomas Reed 
The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401303
278 0558; tombreed@home.com; <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Paul S.
Anderson
To: <A title=ronallarson@qwest.net
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net">Ron Larson ; <A
title=ajmalawene01@hotmail.com
href="mailto:ajmalawene01@hotmail.com">Apolinário J Malawene ; <A
title=bobkarlaweldon@cs.com href="mailto:bobkarlaweldon@cs.com">Bob and Karla
Weldon ; Ed
Francis ; <A title=ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz
href="mailto:ajtsamba@zebra.uem.mz">Tsamba--Alberto Julio ; <A
title=stoves@crest.org href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org ;
Priyadarshini Karve
; Nick
Nayak
Cc: <A title=psanders@ilstu.edu
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 12:47
PM
Subject: Re: Stoves-Archives
Project--Expansion???
Drs. AD and Priya Karve (with info for Stovers),(Note
of caution:  The first part of this message is very much in the line of
the Stoves topics and I hope you will read it.   But UNPLANNED 
by me, at the end of my message I found myself forced into a corner from which
I could only make an editorial comment.  So I put this note of caution at
the beginning.) Three developments concerning the Stoves-Archives
Project:1.  Ron has replied, likes the concept, and pledges his
support.  His highly favorable comments about what he and others saw in
Pune a year ago are greatly appreciated.2.  Ron suggests the
involvement of Alex English, and we hope to hear from Alex any suggestions or
involvement he might have.3.  An additional sponsor for the
project has been identified, and I would like to introduce to the Stove people
Nicholas Nayak, who has several unique
characteristics: