BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Tue Jul 2 12:04:06 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:56 2004
Subject: wood contamination and efficient
Message-ID: <65267.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

Ron Larson and other stovers:

In reply to your message in answer to Rogerio.

>> >talking are Etienne Moerman and Professor Prasad at Eindhoven
>> >University (Netherlands). They have been skeptical that the
>> >charcoal-making stove can work - even though we see it work well
>> >regularly. We in this case are Tom Reed, Tom Duke and myself - all of
>> >whom have tried it. I don't believe any others on the list have tried
>> to >make one yet.

I am not skeptical about the possibility of operating your stove at all. I
just did not succeed in a half-hearted attempt myself. What I am skeptical
about (and I think I speak for Prasad on this too) is its use in the field
for ordinary cooking tasks. With respect to fuel use, cost and possibilities
of selling the char I have my doubts. Also harvesting the charcoal is not
very convenient, but IF it can be sold I suppose that is only a minor
problem. Also I think we should attack the present use of charcoal instead
of catering to it.

 

> Yes FWD-Kenya is on the list. I believe there are other offices
> - if so, do you have any additional e-mail addresses?

There are offices in Indonesia, China and a number of other countries. So
far I have not yet found any email addresses.

 

>> MIGUEL TROSSERO WOODENERGY EXPERT-FAO/ROME "miguel.trossero@fao.org"

I thought he was already on the list. If not Prasad will meet him in Geneva
about now.

>> TORSTEN FRISK TECHNICAL SECRETARY FAO/CHILE "t.frisk-fao@cgnet.com"
>> LUIS AUGUSTO HORTA COORDINATOR EFEI/BRASIL "horta@iem.efei.rmg.br"
>> >
>> ALSO, THERE IS
>>
>> 1. THE BIOMASS USERS NETWORK (BUN), A WORLDWIDE NGO CREATED BY
>> DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO PROMOTE BIOMASS AMONG SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION.
>>
>> JOSE MARIA BLANCO BUN/COSTA RICA "josemb@cariari.ucr.ac.cr"
>>
>> 2. DR. ERICK BOY OF THE CENTRAL AMERICA INSTITUTE FOR NUTRITION (INCAP)
>> WHO IS DEVELOPING RESEARCH ABOUT THE HEALTH IMPACT OF TRADITIONAL
>> WOODSTOVES. DR. KIRK HAS CONTACT WITH HIM
>>
>> ERICK BOY INCAP/GUATEMALA "eboy@incap2.org.gt"

This address did not work when Ron tried it. "incap2.org.gt" is incorrect.

>> 3. THE REGIONAL WOODENERGY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (RWEDP) OF FAO
>> IN ASIA, WHO IS WORKING IN 15 ASIA COUNTRIES WITH ALL ASPECTS OF
>> WOODENERGY
>> DR. W. HULSCHER CHIEF TECHNICAL ADVISOR/RWEDP THAILAND
>> "rwedp@ksc.net.th"

I thought Mr. Hulscher was on the list too. I will check this out, he might
be too busy.

>> FINNALY, I WILL SHARE THE STOVE NET ADDRESS WITH INTERESTED PEOPLE HERE
>> IN NICARAGUA AND IN HONDURAS.

Thanks. The more people subscribe the better.

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

 

From rwedp at ksc.net.th Tue Jul 2 20:06:11 1996
From: rwedp at ksc.net.th (Dr. W.S. Hulscher)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:56 2004
Subject: Email address of FWD in Indonesia
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.93.960703065237.9405A-100000@comnet.ksc.net.th>

On Sat. 31 Aug ??? Etienne wrote > There are offices in Indonesia, China
> and a number of other countries. So far I have not yet found any
> email addresses.

FWD Indonesia is headed by Aryanto Sudjarwo but they are also (better)
known as ARECOP (Asian Regional Cookstove Programme). This programme is
headed by Christina Aristanti and assisted by Michelle Schuelein. The
latter has worked extensively on South/Central America. They can be
reached by email at <anton.soedjarwo@ins.healthnet.org

With regard to China, Mr. Wang Meng Jie who was the focal point for FWD
apparently has retired (not 100% sure) and therefore there may not be a
focal point in China at the moment.

Besides China, FWD is also represented in India, Guatemala and in West
Africa. Christina/Aryanto should be able to bring you up to date with
addresses, etc.

> I thought Mr. Hulscher was on the list too. I will check this out, he
> might be too busy.

Yes indeed, we here at RWEDP are a bit busy. That does not imply that we
are not interested. Although we have just been added to the mailing list
and therefore may not be up to date with has been discussed earlier it
appears to us that the charcoal making stove, although interesting from
the viewpoint of technology development, may find it difficult to be
accepted on a large scale by housewifes who often are already overburdened
with other work and probably could well do without attending the fire
propoerly, harvesting the charcoal and sunsequently selling it. This is
just a thought and probably will have to be verified under actual
conditions.

Best regards,

Auke Koopmans
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
In your reply, please write name of addressee in the subject field. | | |
| FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia | | Maliwan
Mansion, Phra Atit Road fax: (66-2) 280-0760 | | Bangkok 10200, THAILAND
phone: (66-2) 280-2760 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

 

From larcon at csn.net Tue Jul 2 23:30:25 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:56 2004
Subject: Reply to Auke Koopmans
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.93.960703065237.9405A-100000@comnet.ksc.net.th>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607022136.A8929-0100000@teal.csn.net>

To: Dr. Hulscher/Auke Koopmans and other stovers (and to Aryanto as well):
Greetings to the "stoves" list - thanks for your quick response
to Etienne's note today. Further comments below on selected excerpts.

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Dr. W.S. Hulscher wrote:

This was an automatic response - this e-mail came in from Auke Koopmans.

>
> FWD Indonesia is headed by Aryanto Sudjarwo but they are also (better)
> known as ARECOP (Asian Regional Cookstove Programme). This programme is
> headed by Christina Aristanti and assisted by Michelle Schuelein. The
> latter has worked extensively on South/Central America. They can be
> reached by email at <anton.soedjarwo@ins.healthnet.org

In addition to welcoming Aryanto through this note, I shall also
add him to the list - to see if he cares to listen in for awhile/
>
> With regard to China, Mr. Wang Meng Jie who was the focal point for FWD
> apparently has retired (not 100% sure) and therefore there may not be a
> focal point in China at the moment.
>
> Besides China, FWD is also represented in India, Guatemala and in West
> Africa. Christina/Aryanto should be able to bring you up to date with
> addresses, etc. >

Christina/Aryanto: Please send any e-mail addresses of persons
who might find a "stoves" list of interest. I will be sending additional
information on our stoves group.

> > I thought Mr. Hulscher was on the list too. I will check this out, he
> > might be too busy.
>
> Yes indeed, we here at RWEDP are a bit busy. That does not imply that we
> are not interested. Although we have just been added to the mailing list
> and therefore may not be up to date with has been discussed earlier it
> appears to us that the charcoal making stove, although interesting from
> the viewpoint of technology development, may find it difficult to be
> accepted on a large scale by housewifes who often are already overburdened
> with other work and probably could well do without attending the fire
> propoerly, harvesting the charcoal and sunsequently selling it. This is
> just a thought and probably will have to be verified under actual
> conditions.
>
It is the opinion of the two Toms and myself that the stove
reduces housewife work - as there need be little tending of the fire for 1
or 2 hours. The sizeable turn-down ratio is a help in reducing fuel
consumption. This is a batch stove whose cooking duration can be
predetermined. More importantly, we believe the housewife will benefit
greatly from reduced smoke inhalation. The harvesting is not yet
perfected, but is not particularly onerous now. One either smothers the
fire (difficult) or shakes the charcoal on the ground or into a can and
either covers or moistens. My experience is that cooks everywhere already
do this as much as they can - since charcoal is a preferred fuel over
wood.

All of the developing country cooks with whom I have discussed
this look forward to any product they can sell. However, they also can
use it themselves for the many cooking tasks for which charcoal is a
preferred fuel.

I agree in part with Etienne when he states: " Also I think we should
attack the present use of charcoal instead of catering to it." But this
is only because most charcoal is produced in such a wasteful fashion. In
most other respects, it seems superior to wood (at least in normal
stoves). I believe it is utterly hopeless to attack the present use of
charcoal - I believe the emphasis must be on making it in more
environmentally sensitive ways. A charcoal making pyrolyzing stove is
one such method.

> Best regards,
>
> Auke Koopmans

Auke - thank you for your response. Please let us know more
about your operations in Thailand in the area of stoves.

Ron Larson, Golden Colorado

 

From psn at ibe2.dtu.dk Wed Jul 3 12:02:14 1996
From: psn at ibe2.dtu.dk (Per S. Nielsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:56 2004
Subject: new on the list from Denmark
Message-ID: <31DB1987@smtp.ibe.dtu.dk>

 

Hej stoves

I am working with energy planning in general, in particular biomass. I am
working with Paal Wendelboe, Norway, who has developed a pyrolysis stove.
We have done the test of the stove at the Technical University in
Denmark. The stove is very simple, has in fact only one combustion
chamber where the pyrolysis occur in the buttom and in the top where
secondary air is applied a perfect gas flame is produced. The tests have
only been carried out in the last year. Paal Wendelbo is working with the
stove in Adjumani Refugee camp, Uganda where we have done some tests. The
stove burns as good on dry grass as dry woodchips. The stove efficiency
is around 25% with a caloric value of 15 MJ/kg wood chips (10% moisture).
An efficiency of 21-23% is measured on grass in the refugee camp also
with a caloric value of 15 MJ/kg, but without knowing the water content
of the grass.

Our CO-emissions measurements are not perfect, but carried out in a 500
liter chamber where we measure the air inlet and then measured the CO
concentration in the out-let. The stove is not fully developed in the
sence that the CO-concentration increase to 0.20% when the pot is placed
just upon the stove whereas it is 0.02% when the distance between the pot
and stove is 10 cm. This indicate that the secondary air inlet is
insufficient in the first case. If the room is 5 m3 the CO concentration
will naturally be 10 times less. The stove efficiency falls from 18% to
12% moving the pot from 0cm to 10cm from the stove (This efficiency can
not be compared with the efficiency figures first listed, as the
air-inlet was controlled).

One advantage with the stove, as we see it, is that it has a charcoal
effect when it burns with dry grass in Uganda. As you know the high
energy demand is in the beginning when you want to heat your food. After
the food is cooking the energy you need is considerable reduced (to less
than 10% when a lid is used). When the stove burns on grass in Uganda the
pyrolysis appear for around 30 minutes, and then a charcoal effect is
just sufficient to keep the water burning for 30 minutes more. The
comment in the refugee camp was that "this stove could cook their beans."

There is naturally also drawbacks. The combustion chamber must not be too
big, otherwise it is not possible to get the pyrolysis started. But we
have tryed putting three stoves together and then it is possible to heat
more than 20 liters of water, but the efficiency is a bit lower as the
air-supply in the center is insufficient. Nevetheless, we have not been
able to do all the tests we want to do. As you know funding for this kind
of technology is limited. However, we have been well taken care of in
Adjumani refugee camp, by the english ngo ACCORD.

Regards

Per S. Nielsen
Department of Building and Energy
Technical University of Denmark
Building 118
2800 Lyngby
Denmark
email: psn@ibe.dtu.dk

 

From larcon at csn.net Thu Jul 4 15:21:40 1996
From: larcon at csn.net (Ronal Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:56 2004
Subject: new on the list from Denmark, response from Ron Larson
In-Reply-To: <31DB1987@smtp.ibe.dtu.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607041328.A6714-0100000@teal.csn.net>

 

Response to Per Nielsen stoves communication of 3 July by Ron Larson:

1a. Per said: "I am working with energy planning in general, in
particular biomass. I am working with Paal Wendelboe, Norway, who has
developed a pyrolysis stove. We have done the test of the stove at the
Technical University in Denmark.'
Ron: "Can you give us an e-mail address for Paal and anyone else
involved with this project who might like to be on the stoves list? In
addition to your test results below, are any more test results
available? How many stoves tested, etc."

1b. Per said: "The stove is very simple, has in fact only one combustion
chamber where the pyrolysis occur in the buttom and in the top where
secondary air is applied a perfect gas flame is produced. The tests have
only been carried out in the last year."
Ron: "What are some of the key stove dimensions (heights,
diameters, air entry areas, etc? (I am sending separately a description
of ours from last January). We employ separate pyrolysis and combustion
zones (or roughly equal size)."

1c. Per said: "Paal Wendelbo is working with the stove in Adjumani
Refugee camp, Uganda where we have done some tests. The stove burns as
good on dry grass as dry woodchips. The stove efficiency is around 25%
with a caloric value of 15 MJ/kg wood chips (10% moisture). An efficiency
of 21-23% is measured on grass in the refugee camp also with a caloric
value of 15 MJ/kg, but without knowing the water content of the grass."
Ron: "Could you give more detail on the efficiency test? Is
there any close shielding around the cook pot? Did the char from the
grass and wood chips receive any energy credit? Or was the char always
totally consumed? Could the measured efficiency difference been due only
to the difference in input energy? (We often use 18 MJ/kg for wood).
Were tests ever performed with (vertical) wood branches? What is the
size and shape of the chips?"

2a. Per said: "Our CO-emissions measurements are not perfect, but
carried out in a 500 liter chamber where we measure the air inlet and
then measured the CO concentration in the outlet. The stove is not fully
developed in the sence that the CO-concentration increase to 0.20% when
the pot is placed just upon the stove whereas it is 0.02% when the
distance between the pot and stove is 10 cm. This indicate that the
secondary air inlet is insufficient in the first case. If the room is 5
m3 the CO concentration will naturally be 10 times less. The stove
efficiency falls from 18% to 12% moving the pot from 0cm to 10cm from the
stove (This efficiency can not be compared with the efficiency figures
first listed, as the air-inlet was controlled). "
Ron: " A key discussion topic on this list has been the
variability in power output as the primary air has been controlled. Did
you control primary and secondary air inlets separately? And if so what
power levels (or turn-down ratios) were realized?
It is not clear what size ÒchimneyÓ is used and what it means to
say there is a 0 cm separation. Does the pot then sit on the fuel supply?"

3. Per said: " One advantage with the stove, as we see it, is that it
has a charcoal effect when it burns with dry grass in Uganda. As you know
the high energy demand is in the beginning when you want to heat your
food. After the food is cooking the energy you need is considerable
reduced (to less than 10% when a lid is used). When the stove burns on
grass in Uganda the pyrolysis appear for around 30 minutes, and then a
charcoal effect is
just sufficient to keep the water burning for 30 minutes more. The
comment in the refugee camp was that "this stove could cook their beans."
Ron: "It appears from this you have not attempted to salvage the
charcoal, nor to control the stove power level by controlling input air -
true? Is charcoal a prized commodity in Uganda? How many kg of biomass
for 3o minute burn-time? (And what power level)"

4a. Per said: "There are naturally also drawbacks. The combustion
chamber must not be too big, otherwise it is not possible to get the
pyrolysis started."
Ron: " In our (Tom Reed, Tom Duke and myself) design, there is a
chimney about the pyrolysis zone that creates sufficient draft to get the
pyrolysis going. We have rarely had difficulty getting the pyrolysis
started. The chimney height is on the order of the diameter."

4b. Per said: "But we have tried putting three stoves together and then
it is possible to heat more than 20 liters of water, but the efficiency
is a bit lower as the air-supply in the center is insufficient."
Ron: "I have a mental image of three cans touching each other -
perhaps of 15-20 cm diameter . I have tested designs of 30 cm diameter
which receive a large portion of the secondary air from a central metal
pipe leading from the "primary" air plenum. Might this trick work in
your case?"

4c. Per said: "Nevertheless, we have not been able to do all the tests
we want to do. As you know funding for this kind of technology is
limited. However, we have been well taken care of in Adjumani refugee
camp, by the english ngo ACCORD.
Regards Per S. Nielsen"

Ron: "Per, I believe everyone on this list is short of funds - I
think most of the work is now self-financed. Please send any e-mail
addresses for Adjumani or ACCORD.
Has the stove been tested with rural users yet? Is it being well
received by users? What is the production cost and/or sales price of the
stove (perhaps at different sizes?)? Is this made of metal, ceramics,
both, other? How many stove tests; how many months of testing (in lab or
in field)? Any indication that its use might be expanding outside of the
refugee camp? Can you describe the history on why this pyrolysis
approach was attempted (this is only the second report of a pyrolyzing
charcoal-making stove to this group). If you or Paal know of other such
development efforts, they would be of major interest to quite a few on
this list, I believe.
Thanks very much for a very interesting (but too short)
description. I look forward to hearing more within a few days - as I am
off for Ethiopia for 6 weeks. Best of luck with your future work.

Regards (and happy US Independence Day) Ron Larson"

 

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Wed Jul 10 13:21:41 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:56 2004
Subject: new on the list from Denmark
Message-ID: <69876.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

Welcome Per,

I read your posting to the list and I am glad others in Europe are working
on stoves too. Could you provide me with some details (reports) on your
stove. I think you might want to contact Ron Larson, Tom Reed and Tom Duke
since they have developed a pyrolysing stove too. I must say I think the
advantage of your stove over theirs is that you use the charcoal for the
simmering proces.

Per:
> An efficiency of 21-23% is measured on grass in the refugee camp also
> with a caloric value of 15 MJ/kg, but without knowing the water content
> of the grass.

Etienne: How do you know the calorific value when you don't know the water
content? I suppose that it is just a crude estimate. Is the grass dried or
freshly cut?

Per:
> Our CO-emissions measurements are not perfect, but carried out in a 500
> liter chamber where we measure the air inlet and then measured the CO
> concentration in the out-let. The stove is not fully developed in the

Etienne:
Could you determine the CO levels in the fluegases exiting the stove, before
they are diluted by ambient air?

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

 

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Wed Jul 10 13:21:37 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:56 2004
Subject: Auke Koopmans. RE: Email address of FWD in Indonesia
Message-ID: <69872.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

Auke wrote:

> Yes indeed, we here at RWEDP are a bit busy. That does not imply that we
> are not interested. Although we have just been added to the mailing list
> and therefore may not be up to date with has been discussed earlier it
> appears to us that the charcoal making stove, although interesting from
> the viewpoint of technology development, may find it difficult to be
> accepted on a large scale by housewifes who often are already overburdened
> with other work and probably could well do without attending the fire
> propoerly, harvesting the charcoal and sunsequently selling it. This is
> just a thought and probably will have to be verified under actual
> conditions.

Etienne:
This topic has been discused in the past, however a lot of new subscribers
are on the list. Also we have not yet had any reactions on this topic from
the field. I think some comments from the field would be very helpful.
Prasad and I have had the same doubts about the charcoal producing stove. In
addition I don't like the indirect promotion of charcoal use.

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

 

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Wed Jul 10 13:21:43 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:56 2004
Subject: new on the list from Denmark, response from Ron Larson
Message-ID: <69879.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

Ron:
> totally consumed? Could the measured efficiency difference been due only=
> =20
> to the difference in input energy? (We often use 18 MJ/kg for wood). =20
> Were tests ever performed with (vertical) wood branches? What is the=20
> size and shape of the chips?"

Etienne:
I assume that the difference here occurs due to the lower and higher heating
value. Since Per is from Denmark I suppose he uses the lower, while I assume
that your 18MJ/kg is the higher.

> =09Ron: "It appears from this you have not attempted to salvage the=20
> charcoal, nor to control the stove power level by controlling input air -=
> =20
> true? Is charcoal a prized commodity in Uganda? How many kg of biomass=20
> for 3o minute burn-time? (And what power level)"

Etienne:
He is using the charcoal, without any additional effort, for the
simmering phase. In this way he achieves a reasonable turndown ratio. This
is a process that Prasad and Piet Verhaart have been advocating for years.

Ron:
> =09Has the stove been tested with rural users yet? Is it being well=20
> received by users? What is the production cost and/or sales price of the=
> =20
> stove (perhaps at different sizes?)? Is this made of metal, ceramics,=20
> both, other? How many stove tests; how many months of testing (in lab or=20
> in field)? Any indication that its use might be expanding outside of the=
> =20
> refugee camp?

Etienne:
I would like to hear more about the above posed questions too.

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

 

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Thu Jul 11 21:04:22 1996
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: Pyrolyzing cookstove
Message-ID: <199607111908.TAA07746@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

At 07:24 PM 7/10/96 +0100, you wrote:
>Auke wrote:
>
>> Yes indeed, we here at RWEDP are a bit busy. That does not imply that we
>> are not interested. Although we have just been added to the mailing list
>> and therefore may not be up to date with has been discussed earlier it
>> appears to us that the charcoal making stove, although interesting from
>> the viewpoint of technology development, may find it difficult to be
>> accepted on a large scale by housewifes who often are already overburdened
>> with other work and probably could well do without attending the fire
>> propoerly, harvesting the charcoal and sunsequently selling it. This is
>> just a thought and probably will have to be verified under actual
>> conditions.
>
>Etienne:
>This topic has been discused in the past, however a lot of new subscribers
>are on the list. Also we have not yet had any reactions on this topic from
>the field. I think some comments from the field would be very helpful.
>Prasad and I have had the same doubts about the charcoal producing stove. In
>addition I don't like the indirect promotion of charcoal use.
>
>ROGERIO:

In the concept this cookstove seems to be a great idea. I haven't tryed it
yet(but I want to). For those who have experienced, I have the following
questions?

1. will it cook the meals with the same amount of fuelwood ? how much more
or less fuel it requires ?

2. Is it more complicate to operate ?

3. How much is the estimate cost for this cookstove ?

4. Will it need to be built under specialized conditions, e.g, manufactory?

5. What would be the indoor environment impact of this cookstove ?

Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda Telefax: (505) 276 0412
E-mail: rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Thu Jul 11 21:04:29 1996
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves
Message-ID: <199607111908.TAA07748@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

Hi stovers:

I wonder why we are on the edge of the 21st century, and yet billions of
people around the world are still using 15th century (or early) technology
for cooking. As I have read, seems that woodstove technology is not the
problem, because we well know how combustion works, and how to minimize the
negative effects of woodsmoke. The cost also does seem to be a problem,
because woodstove can be built around US$10 to 20, and microcredit loans
can resolve the problem for those too poor even for that amount.

So, why the poor women around the world does not acquire an improved woodstove ?

Is it cultural ?

Is it a woman problem, and is not a priority on the every day hard life?

Are them stupid to not understand the negative economical and health impacts
of traditional woodstoves ?

Is it lack of apropiate motivation of the women by the promoting agencies ?

Why?

 

I have to go now, and I will continue with my comments tomorrow. Meanwhile,
if anybody want to chat about that, I will love it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda Telefax: (505) 276 0412
E-mail: rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au Sat Jul 13 07:01:28 1996
From: verhaarp at janus.cqu.edu.au (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: wood contamination and efficient
Message-ID: <9607131104.AA06891@janus.cqu.edu.au>

>
>Stovers: I am responding publicly to this private message from Rogerio
>- as it contains some new information but especially new names.
>
>Ron
>
>On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda wrote:
>
>> At 07:43 PM 6/26/96 -0600, you wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > We got started last January when a few people started taking up a
>> >lot of space on the bioenergy list. Two key persons who have been
>> >talking are Dr. Etienne Moerman and Professor Prasad at Eindhoven
>> >University (Netherlands). They have been skeptical that the
>> >charcoal-making stove can work - even though we see it work well
>> >regularly. We in this case are Tom Reed, Tom Duke and myself - all of
>> >whom have tried it. I don't believe any others on the list have tried to
>> >make one yet.
>>
Protest from "Down Under"

Lone Outback O Z has made charcoal making stoves. As reported, beside
charcoal they made a lot of smoke that could only be dissipated before
reaching neighbours thanks to large distance between him and nextdoor
neighbours. No blue flames. Wrong hemisphere?
Will tackle construction of his Jak Stove with renewed vigour after recent
trip to Darwin and Alice Springs.
More NOx from our stoves!
Piet Verhaart

 

 

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Sat Jul 13 08:32:37 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: Pyrolyzing cookstove
Message-ID: <52525.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

To Rogerio and others interested in the pyrolyzing stove-

-----
Rogerio wrote:
> In the concept this cookstove seems to be a great idea. I haven't tryed it
> yet(but I want to). For those who have experienced, I have the following
> questions?
>
> 1. will it cook the meals with the same amount of fuelwood ? how much more
> or less fuel it requires ?
------

Etienne:
I think we should first determine the amount of fuel that is required to
cook say 1 kg. of rice. I did an experiment with the shielded fire and came
to 0.397 kg. wood(White Fir, 10% moisture on a dry matter basis)/kg. rice.
Due to inexperience this is still very high and can easily be reduced to
0.3 kg. wood(White Fir, 10% moisture on a dry matter basis)/kg. rice and
possibly even further. As soon as I have time I will do another experiment.
So far I have heard no results about the pyrolyzing stove.
-----------

Rogerio:
> 2. Is it more complicate to operate ?

----------

Etienne:
Yes. The harvesting of the charcoal is cumbersome, see also Prasad's? message
a few days ago about trying to sell the charcoal.

I think the pyrolyzing stove should be subjected to a few standardized tests
together with 2 or 3 other stoves in order to get a fair comparison. Also a
field test should determine if the users are willing to perform the
cumbersome harvesting procedure during the cooking task and if selling the
charcoal yield makes economic sense. I have doubts on these last 2 points.

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

 

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Sat Jul 13 08:32:39 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves
Message-ID: <52531.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

Rogerio and stovers:

-------------
Rogerio wrote:
> for cooking. As I have read, seems that woodstove technology is not the
> problem, because we well know how combustion works, and how to minimize the
> negative effects of woodsmoke.
-----------

Etienne:
I don't think woodstove technology is not a problem anymore. We are still
way off a complete model for combustion, air flow and heat transfer in the
stove. So far we have only very crude approximations available that
sometimes work for a single configuration after experimenal comparison.

-----------

Rogerio:
> The cost also does seem to be a problem,
> because woodstove can be built around US$10 to 20, and microcredit loans
> can resolve the problem for those too poor even for that amount.

-------

Etienne:
Let me get a table about the average wages in some poor countries (remember
that the poor people in those countries earn a lot less) from 'Third world
guide 93/94':
Per Capita GNP in US $:
Bhutan 180
Botswana 1600
Cambodia 130
Ethiopia 120
Lesotho 470
Mali 270
Myanmar 200
Nepal 180
etcetera

I hope this is sufficient to put things in perspective.

---------

Rogerio:
> So, why the poor women around the world does not acquire an improved
> woodstove ?
> Is it cultural ?
> Is it a woman problem, and is not a priority on the every day hard life?
> Are them stupid to not understand the negative economical and health impacts
> of traditional woodstoves ?
> Is it lack of apropiate motivation of the women by the promoting agencies ?

---------

Etienne:
I still think that porverty is the most important reason. In addition I
expect some conservatism is in play too. The open fire has prooved its
versatility for millenia, while most 'improved' stoves do not the job that
the users want it to.

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

 

From CKEZAR34 at aol.com Sat Jul 13 09:28:56 1996
From: CKEZAR34 at aol.com (CKEZAR34@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves -Chuck Kezar
Message-ID: <960713093403_155115035@emout16.mail.aol.com>

Comment

Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda wrote last week :
>I wonder why we are on the edge of the 21st century, and yet billions of
>people around the world are still using 15th century (or early) technology
>for cooking. As I have read, seems that wood stove technology is not the
>problem, because we well know how combustion works, and how to minimize the
>negative effects of wood smoke. The cost also does seem to be a problem,
>because woodstove can be built around US$10 to 20, and microcredit loans
>can resolve the problem for those too poor even for that amount.

I also have been bother by a sense that quality of life, health, economic
growth and other non stove issues are being ignored. And that solving the
CO2 and Environmental issues on their backs with better stoves seems the
wrong place to rest these world wide issues - however, I'm a serious green
house skeptic.

I know when my daughter as part of the Peace Corps tried to improve local
nutrition in southern Bolivia by teaching gardening. She found great interest
from the women not in gardening but in making money to better their family.
So she started a sewing Coop - which gained instant support.

I think the answer to Rogerio Carneiro question is to do both - raise the
economic level and for those that continue to need wood stoves - show them
how to build better stoves. And potentially give them a by product,
charcoal. However building economic and human development should be the
primary objective.

Chuck Kezar
Technology Management Consultant

 

 

From aellegaard at nn.apc.org Sat Jul 13 10:14:32 1996
From: aellegaard at nn.apc.org (aellegaard@nn.apc.org)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves -Chuck Kezar
Message-ID: <199607131518.PAA13983@nn.apc.org>

Comment from a sleeping member:
Chuck, I think you are so right. We should not try to solve the preoblems
only we perceive. Only if improved stoves contribute to a tangible benefit
for the users will they be successful. Unfortunately (or fortunately) most
women in developing countries do not consider firewood a problem. Also,
saving firewood will not save any money, at least in rural areas. Smoke
may be seen as a problem, but most improved stoves do little to reduce
smoke while cooking.
I think your comment carries the field a bit away from stove technology and
into human ecology. Which I think is appropriate.
There, I stuck my neck out.
Anders Ellegard

 

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Sun Jul 14 15:48:20 1996
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves
Message-ID: <199607141351.NAA15138@ns.sdnnic.org.ni>

 

> ROGERIO ORIGINALLY WROTE:

>>Hi stovers:
>>>>
>>I wonder why we are on the edge of the 21st century, and yet billions of
>>people around the world are still using 15th century (or early) technology
>>for cooking. As I have read, seems that woodstove technology is not the
>>problem, because we well know how combustion works, and how to minimize the
>>negative effects of woodsmoke. The cost also doens't seem to be a problem,
>>because woodstove can be built around US$10 to 20, and microcredit loans
>>can resolve the problem for those even too poor for that amount.
. So, why the poor women around the world does not acquire an improved
woodstove ?
. Is it cultural ?
. Is it a woman problem, therefore is not a priority on the every day hard
life?
. Are them so ignorant to this problem to not understand the negative
economical and health impacts of traditional woodstoves ?
. Is it lack of apropiate motivation of the women by the promoting agencies ?
. Why?
>---------------->
>>MIGUEL TROSSERO WROTE:
>
>Estimado Rogerio:
>
>Muy bien tus comentarios. Porque? La respuesta no es simple; tampoco lo es
>el problema. Segun mi interpretacion es simplemente una serie de factores
>que combinados de diversa manera constituyen el mundo subdesarrollado, el
>tercer mundo o como quieras llamarlo. La solucion por ende, no es simple,
>reuiere de muchos recursos ademas de dinero y tiempo. Saludos Miguel
> ------------>
ETIENNE WROTE:

I don't think woodstove technology is not a problem anymore. We are still
way off a complete model for combustion, air flow and heat transfer in the
stove. So far we have only very crude approximations available that
sometimes work for a single configuration after experimenal comparison.

About the costs, let me get a table about the average wages in some poor
countries (remember that the poor people in those countries earn a lot less)
from 'Third world
guide 93/94':
Per Capita GNP in US $:
Bhutan 180
Botswana 1600
Cambodia 130
Ethiopia 120
Lesotho 470
Mali 270
Myanmar 200
Nepal 180
etcetera

I hope this is sufficient to put things in perspective.

Also, I still think that porverty is the most important reason. In addition I
expect some conservatism is in play too. The open fire has prooved its
versatility for millenia, while most 'improved' stoves do not the job that
the users want it to.
--------------------->
CHUCK KEZAR WROTE:

I also have been bother by a sense that quality of life, health, economic
growth and other non stove issues are being ignored. And that solving the
CO2 and Environmental issues on their backs with better stoves seems the
wrong place to rest these world wide issues - however, I'm a serious green
house skeptic.

I know when my daughter as part of the Peace Corps tried to improve local
nutrition in southern Bolivia by teaching gardening. She found great interest
from the women not in gardening but in making money to better their family.
So she started a sewing Coop - which gained instant support.

I think the answer to Rogerio Carneiro question is to do both - raise the
economic level and for those that continue to need wood stoves - show them
how to build better stoves. And potentially give them a by product,
charcoal. However building economic and human development should be the
primary objective.
--------------------->
ANDERS ELLEGARD WROTE:

Chuck, I think you are so right. We should not try to solve the preoblems
only we perceive. Only if improved stoves contribute to a tangible benefit
for the users will they be successful. Unfortunately (or fortunately) most
women in developing countries do not consider firewood a problem. Also,
saving firewood will not save any money, at least in rural areas. Smoke
may be seen as a problem, but most improved stoves do little to reduce
smoke while cooking.
I think your comment carries the field a bit away from stove technology and
into human ecology. Which I think is appropriate.
There, I stuck my neck out.
------------------>
ROGERIO WROTE:

I agree and disagree with Etienne, when he says that technology is still an
issue. Well, we know wood combustion techonology since we lived in the
caves,e.g., thousand of years ago. However, we haven't put the same effort
in discovering the wood energy science, as we have put in developing the
sciences of space crafts, war machines, nuclear energy, microwaves, e.mail,
television, and other high tech.

But what we know already, is more than enough to be transferred to consumers
to make woodenergy a user friendly technology.

I know that very low income is a big barrier to these families. However, as
Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and other microcredit loans to the poorest around
the world has shown, is that these poor people can get an appropiate loan
(low interest) and pay it back at rates of 97%(levels much higher than
commercial bank loans).

I agree with Chuck that for the poor, there are other more important issues
in life than woodstoves, like food security, housing and jobs. However,
woodstoves ARE very important for them because it is the critical source of
energy that they have - they simply cannot eat without fuelwood. The problem
I think, is that they are not aware of how much easier their life could be
under improved energy efficiency and reducing the negative impacts in their
life. Then, should we make them aware of it, and consequently create another
worry for their life ?

We, as the "non poor" class, used to be concerned mainly with issues in our
every day life such as democracy and social justice, for instance. However,
since we were made aware of the environmental issues, they have become an
important concern in our lives. This is true, even though most of us don't
feel the negative impacts of environmental degradation in our every day
life. But because we can forsee danger in the near future, thinking in the
long term about our planet, this makes it a very important issue right now.

We the "non poor" are much more aware of the cost and the impact of the
energy sources in our every day life. We know that some governement body is
out there regulating and planning cheaper ways to bring us the convenience
of electricity and gasoline. Must of us have decided for instance, for non
nuclear energy, and reduction of petroleum consumption, because we know the
long-term impacts.

However for fuelwood, which is the oldest and major fuel source for about
the 2 billion poorest people around the developing and underdeveloped world,
there is no government body working for increasing efficiency and supply,
and reducing the costs and the negative impacts on health and environment.
Why is that? I think that the poor haven't realized all the costs of
inefficient woodstoves and declining fuelwood supplies. Neither do the poor
consumers realize that government isn't doing a thing to address this
problem. Also, poor people aren't aware nor organized enough to push the
politicians to address the fuelwood problem.

We here in PROLENA, think that our NGO should be more involved in advocacy
for fuelwood consumers. We are starting now to increase awareness among poor
consumers of their RIGHT to a better fuelwood sector. We are going to try
it, and hope that the consumers will then demand more response from the
governement to their needs, and take more actions seeking answers
themselves. It is just like democracy, if we really understand how good it
is for our future, we will demand it.

I also agree with Anders, that fuelwood in rural areas is not a big
economical issue as it is in cities. I would like your feed back to help me
with the following calculations. I am not a expert in thermodynamics, and so
please correct the following numbers as needed:

FACTS:

Electricity price for urban household consumers in Nicaragua and Honduras is
US$0.08/kwh

Fuelwood price for urban household consumers in Honduras is about
US$50/Metric ton and US$ 80/Mton in Nicaragua (air dry).

average 0.002 Mton of wood (air dry) per kwh

traditional woodstove efficiency = 10%

average electric stove efficiency = 60%(??? please correct if no true)

RESULTS:

fuelwood cost in Honduras:
0.002Mton fuelwood/kwh * US$50/Mton(Honduras)= US$0.1/kwh

US$0.1/kwh * 10( 10% woodstove efficiency)=US$1.0 /kwh

fuelwood cost in Nicaragua:
0.002Mton fuelwood/kwh * US$80/Mton(Nicaragua)= US$0.16/kwh

US$0.16/kwh * 10( 10% woodstove efficiency)=US$1.6 /kwh

electricity cost:
US$0.08/kwh * 1.66(60% efficiency)= US$0.13/kwh

You can see here that electricity is much cheaper than fuelwood in urban
Central America. Yet, the vast majority of urban poor still use fuelwood as
their primary energy source, and in a very primite way. They do not have an
organized lobby, neither for pressuring to get on the grid, nor for reducing
the costs associated with fuelwood use.

DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda Telefax: (505) 276 0412
E-mail: rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Mon Jul 15 11:47:35 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves
Message-ID: <64218.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

> ROGERIO WROTE:
>
> I agree and disagree with Etienne, when he says that technology is still an
> issue. Well, we know wood combustion techonology since we lived in the
> caves,
> But what we know already, is more than enough to be transferred to consumers
> to make woodenergy a user friendly technology.

-------

Etienne:
We don't know woodfires, we know of woodfires. The problem is that woodfires
are inherently unstable and consequently difficult to control. For liquid
and gaseous fuels it is quite easy to make stoves that are user friendly,
however I don't think that there is a user friendly woodburning cookstove
available at the moment. Compared to liquid and gas stoves all woodstoves
are cumbersome, time and energy wasting devices (what about sticking my head
out).

-------

Rogerio:
> I know that very low income is a big barrier to these families. However, as
> Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and other microcredit loans to the poorest around
> the world has shown, is that these poor people can get an appropiate loan
> (low interest) and pay it back at rates of 97%(levels much higher than
> commercial bank loans).

---------

Etienne:
I am an enthusiast of micro loans, but I imagine that people prefer to use
such a loan for setting up a small business, build a house or things like
that. I assume that a loan for a woodstove is on the bottom of the list.

---------

Rogerio:
> woodstoves ARE very important for them because it is the critical source of
> energy that they have - they simply cannot eat without fuelwood. The problem
> I think, is that they are not aware of how much easier their life could be
> under improved energy efficiency and reducing the negative impacts in their

---------

Etienne:
Some of them might not be aware, but in the country side wood is for free
and an open fire is too. In cities people prefer electric, gas or kerosene
stoves if they can afford it (convenience, status). However a good woodstove
might have a market in city areas.

---------

Rogerio:
> of electricity and gasoline. Must of us have decided for instance, for non
> nuclear energy, and reduction of petroleum consumption, because we know the
> long-term impacts.

-------

Etienne:
You have got to be kidding. I have not yet heard of serious reduction in
overall energy consumption. People buy cars that do more miles to the
gallon, but make more miles their conscience being put to sleep by the
reasoning that they have a more efficient car and thus are doing something
for the environment.

-----------

Rogerio:
> However for fuelwood, which is the oldest and major fuel source for about
> the 2 billion poorest people around the developing and underdeveloped world,
> there is no government body working for increasing efficiency and supply,
> and reducing the costs and the negative impacts on health and environment.
> Why is that? I think that the poor haven't realized all the costs of
> inefficient woodstoves and declining fuelwood supplies. Neither do the poor
> consumers realize that government isn't doing a thing to address this
> problem. Also, poor people aren't aware nor organized enough to push the
> politicians to address the fuelwood problem.

---------

Etienne:
I think that most of the poor are aware of their bad situation, but most
goverments don't care about the poor. Virtually by definition people in
governments are in a different social class than poor people. People tend
to do little or nothing for other social classes. This is a practice that
is probably as old as humanity. However if the poor would organize
themselves on a nationwide scale then governments would have to take notice.

-------------

Rogerio:
> We here in PROLENA, think that our NGO should be more involved in advocacy
> for fuelwood consumers. We are starting now to increase awareness among poor
> consumers of their RIGHT to a better fuelwood sector. We are going to try
> it, and hope that the consumers will then demand more response from the
> governement to their needs, and take more actions seeking answers
> themselves. It is just like democracy, if we really understand how good it
> is for our future, we will demand it.

-------

Etienne:
PROLENA go for it.

---------

Rogerio:

> FACTS:
>
> Electricity price for urban household consumers in Nicaragua and Honduras is
> US$0.08/kwh
>
> Fuelwood price for urban household consumers in Honduras is about
> US$50/Metric ton and US$ 80/Mton in Nicaragua (air dry).
>
> average 0.002 Mton of wood (air dry) per kwh
>
> traditional woodstove efficiency = 10%

---------

Etienne:

1 kg of (air dry) wood is about 15 MJ= 15000 kJ.
1 kWh = 3600(s)*1(kW) = 3600 kJ = 3.6 MJ
So 1 kWh is equivalent with 3.6/15=0.24 kg of wood = 0.00024 Mton of wood.
You are off by a factor 10.

Also 10% efficiency
is too low. I think that 15% is a more reasonable estimate for an open fire
indoor, outdoor 10% can in some cases even be too high. I also have the
impression you make a mistake in your calculations. I hope I will have some
time to check this later this week. Anyway the cost for a new grid in rural
communities might have to be included and this might increase the cost of
electricity substantially. Also I don't know if there is some kind of
fixed subscription fee has to be paid. In The Netherlands this is quite
substantial.

----------

 

> average electric stove efficiency = 60%(??? please correct if no true)
>
> RESULTS:
>
> fuelwood cost in Honduras:
> 0.002Mton fuelwood/kwh * US$50/Mton(Honduras)= US$0.1/kwh NEW US$0.01/kWh
>
> US$0.1/kwh * 10( 10% woodstove efficiency)=US$1.0 /kwh NEW US$0.1/kWh
>
>
> fuelwood cost in Nicaragua:
>0.002Mton fuelwood/kwh*US$80/Mton(Nicaragua)= US$0.16/kwh NEW US$0.016/kWh
>
> US$0.16/kwh * 10( 10% woodstove efficiency)=US$1.6 /kwh NEW US$0.16/kWh
>
>
> electricity cost:
> US$0.08/kwh * 1.66(60% efficiency)= US$0.13/kwh
>
>
> You can see here that electricity is much cheaper than fuelwood in urban

NOT MUCH CHEAPER ANYMORE!!!!!

> Central America. Yet, the vast majority of urban poor still use fuelwood as
> their primary energy source, and in a very primite way. They do not have an
> organized lobby, neither for pressuring to get on the grid, nor for reducing
> the costs associated with fuelwood use.
>
-------------

I think it is good to have discussions like this.

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

 

From HRAJABU at poppy.engr.ucdavis.edu Mon Jul 15 13:09:45 1996
From: HRAJABU at poppy.engr.ucdavis.edu (H M Rajabu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves
Message-ID: <960715101413.38ae@poppy.engr.ucdavis.edu>

hi all

my grandmother still prefers 3 stone stove over anything which uses
fuelwood and charcoal.

i have been involved in some projects on efficient stoves in tanzania. and
my grand parents lives in a rural village. here are some of her reasons:

-she hangs buckets of good seeds above the stove to repel bugs from attacking the seeds. the smoke from the stove repels all kind of bugs where the smoke reaches.

-after finishing cooking she "buries" some glowing charcoal with ash to save as
fire starter when she wants to cook the next meal (can last up to 12 hours)
fire starters (normaly kerosene) is expensive.

-fuelwood is "free", charcoal is not free.

-with 3 stone stove she doesnt need light when cooking early in the morning.

-3 stone stove warms the whole kitchen during cold periods.

-it is easy to adjust the pot height to suit the type of food cooked or
pot used or the fire(normaly the stone tapers "inside" and one stone is
made to also move in and out)

Hassan. M. Rajabu
visiting scholar
Dept. of Bio and Ag. Eng.
UCDavis.

 

From aellegaard at nn.apc.org Tue Jul 16 03:26:57 1996
From: aellegaard at nn.apc.org (aellegaard@nn.apc.org)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves
Message-ID: <199607160831.IAA29219@nn.apc.org>

Etienne s comments to Rogerio said most of what I was thinking, and I entirely
concur: The attraction of investing in wood stoves, the efficiency of wood
stoves, the calculation of energy cost from woodstoves. I did the same
calcualtion on the back of a an envelope here and got the same results as
Etienne: you were off by a factor 10.
In Zambia we have compared the cost of charcoal and electricity for urban
households (living less than 200 m from a power line, so grid extension was
not necessary). We found that electricity can compete with charcoal (limited
wood use in urban Zambia) if only the running costsd are paid, and then only
during the rainy season when charcoal prices are up. If connection fee and
house wiring were added to the costs (as they must be for future programmes)
there was no case for electricity. Lower connection costs, lower standards for
home wiring and deferred payment schemes would reduce the monthly costs for
the consumers, but charcoal would still be cheaper.
We have also found that low-income families do not use electricity for
cooking, even if their houses are electrified. This is probably due to high
costs of stoves and unreliability of supply. Charcoal beats it all the time.
We = Stockholm Environment Institute and Department of Energy, Ministry of Energy and Water Development Lusaka.
Anders E.

 

From psn at ibe2.dtu.dk Wed Jul 17 03:54:01 1996
From: psn at ibe2.dtu.dk (Per S. Nielsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: Details about the pyrolysis gasifier sto
Message-ID: <31ED1BD1@smtp.ibe.dtu.dk>

 

Hje Stovers

I will answer some of the questions by Ron and Etienne. But many of the
qestions might be answered in a small report I have prepared (11 pages).
I have made it availabel at my homepage

http://www.ibe.dtu.dk/medarbej/psn/psn.htm

It is available as a Word-file and as a zip-file.

Paal Wendelboe is now in Uganda and Ghana and will only be back in the
end of August. He has no e-mail address. I am also quite sure ACCORD has
no e-mail address in Uganda and even though they have one and they have
accepted to work with us, I dont think it will help the situation that
everybody is contacting them regarding the stove. The ngo?s are exposed
to many new ideas and new stove regularly, and not all very happy about
it. There are many stoves projects going on in refugee camps - because
wood savings are necessary.

The stove has been developed as a simple stove with any possibility of
controlling primary and secondary air. It means that the stove has to be
developed together with its fuel to obtain the perfect gas flame. This
means, for instance that the stove developed for grass in Uganda might
have to have a slightly other design to burn the grass in Ghana. The
grass might be a bit different, but also things like the humidity play a
crusial role. Therefore it is probably not possible to use just one
design throughout the year, as the biofuels change during the seasons.
When dry grass is available this could be the fuel, but in the rainy
season (when the grass is green) either dry grass has to be stored or
other fuels, like wood, have to be used.

Using wood, however, has the drawback that as the stove is made in
principle by two tins with no "wood holes" small pieces of wood is
needed. It is a bach process.

If of some reason you can not get my report at the homepage. Please let
me know and I will send you a copy by ordinary mail.

Kind regards Per S. Nielsen
psn@ibe.dtu.dk

 

From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Jul 17 09:20:20 1996
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960716140433.006f9f70@mail.teleport.com>

Recent comments - Hassan, Rogerio, Etienne, Anders, etc - have all hit on
import "consumer" aspects of stoves and cooking.

An important issue that is extremely difficult to solve is resource
production, maintenance and regeneration - call it sustainability if you
like. Where fuelwood is being cut faster than it can regenerate we are
creating a long term, probably irreversible, depletion. By picking up the
limbs and large stems we're recreating a situation like the Black Forest in
Germany, robbing the bank of nutrients deep within the soil that has a much
longer regeneration cycle, probably hundreds of years. The fuelwood is not
"free".

Several years ago I thought USAID had a reasonable approach by promoting
agroforestry as a multiple purpose resource - fuel, windbreak, forage etc. I
think most of the work was done in Nepal. Earlier in Mexico we attempted to
integrate fuelwood production and harvesting with commercial thinning,
promoting cultivation of the forest. Costa Rica (CATIE) also had an active
agroforestry program going along with their Madelena program (madera y lena
- wood and firewood). I don't know if any of these have had an impact on a
local fuelwood suply.

Tom

Tom Miles, Jr.
tmiles@teleport.com

 

 

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Wed Jul 17 18:08:43 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: impacts of woodstoves
Message-ID: <694.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

All stovers

Hasan Rajabu sent a message with a few points that remind us that the
three stone fire (open fire) is still very popular because it is so
versatile. We should not forget the other functions of a fire when trying
to promote 'improved stoves'.

Etienne
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands

 

From HRAJABU at poppy.engr.ucdavis.edu Wed Jul 24 00:55:15 1996
From: HRAJABU at poppy.engr.ucdavis.edu (H M Rajabu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: reference on cracking, swelling/shrinking during pyrolysis
Message-ID: <960723215944.94db@poppy.engr.ucdavis.edu>

hi all

i am looking for information on the mechanism of cracking, swelling and/or
shrinking of large wood particle (2cm size and above) when subjected to
high temperature (900 - 1200K) to undergo combustion.

there is a huge list of the same but at a much lower temperature for wood
drying. i will be glad to know if someone has done a study at higher temps.

thanks in advance

hassan rajabu
Dept of Bio & Ag. Engr
UCDavis

 

From zach at crest.org Mon Jul 29 13:29:38 1996
From: zach at crest.org (Zach Nobel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: New mail archive formats for the stoves mailing list.
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.960729132100.21490B-100000@solstice>

 

Hi folks,

I just wanted send out a quick notice to the list announcing a new format
for the HTML archives hosted at the CREST website. Last week I finished
re-organizing the archive into monthly installments sorted by subject. If
you're interested in seeing what I've done, point your web browser to the
following URL:

http://www.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/

Note, at the top of the indices there's links to previous months archives
as well as previous year's archives.

Enjoy!

Zachariah Nobel
_________
Zachariah Nobel, Assistant in Internet Services
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST)
zach@crest.org

 

 

 

 

From E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl Wed Jul 31 15:28:38 1996
From: E.Moerman at stud.tue.nl (E.Moerman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:34:57 2004
Subject: New mail archive formats for the stoves mailing list.
Message-ID: <77453.s335192@popserver.tue.nl>

Zach,

Thanks for the new archives. I hope that people here will enjoy using it. I
will check out the the pages as soon as possible.

Thanks again,

Etienne

PS The address again:
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
>
---------------------------------------------
Etienne Moerman E.Moerman@stud.tue.nl
Joh. Buyslaan 71 tel. +31-40-2571491
5652 NJ EINDHOVEN The Netherlands