May 2000 Gasification Archive

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Tue May 2 21:39:48 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Please Complete CREST Survey
Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000502184029.042ef100@mail.teleport.com>

The Bioenergy Discussion Lists are Hosted by CREST

CREST Survey 2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://solstice.crest.org/survey2000
Win Fantastic Prizes, CD-ROMs and Ultimate Frisbees (tm)
( see http://solstice.crest.org/software-central for software
descriptions).

Fill out our 6th anniversary survey and we'll throw your name into a hat
to win CD-ROMs and glow-in-the-dark CREST Frisbees (tm)! REPP-CREST's
award-winning web site, Solstice, was launched on Earth Day 1994. Please
take a minute to help us celebrate our anniversary, and we'll use the
information you provide to improve our services to you. Don't forget your
email so we can notify you when you've won!
Note: while the survey will be up through June, you must fill out the
survey before May 31 in order to to be entered in the drawing for prizes.

The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed May 3 08:54:05 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Torrefied wood's Future...
Message-ID: <15.34bc109.26417b46@cs.com>

Dear Jim:

Thanks so much for doing my homework for me on Torrefied wood. I'm starting
a file on this subject.

I believe a plant was started in Spain in the mid-1980s to make TW, but has
closed down. Does anyone know more about this? (I presume the economics
were projected to be marvellous, but turned out to be terrible at a time when
oil costs were plummeting. No doubt, someday we'll do it again. Meanwhile
we need to preserve the technology in musty files.)

Thanks, TOM REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 4/30/00 8:10:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, larcon@sni.net
writes:

<<

Dear Tom Reed et al:

The French paper "Charcoal production and pyrolysis technologies". REUR
Technical Series No. 20, 1991, p.101 - 114, publ. by the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, is on
my web site at http://www.techtp.com/torrefied%20wood.htm

The French also have a patent US 4,787,917: Method for producing torrefied
wood, product obtained thereby, and application to the production of energy
Leclerc de Bussy; Jacques (80290 Poix de Picardie, Bussy, FR) Issued
November 29, 1988

Abstract

New product consisting of wood which is torrefied between 250.degree. and
280.degree. C. in a non oxidizing atmosphere, in the form of sticks of
uniform length: 15 mm for example and having a diameter comprised between 5
and 20 mm, which are not disbarked. The preparation of the method comprised
the obtention by culture of rectilinear ligneous rejections, the cutting,
drying and torrefaction thereof preferably in a vertical reactor where the
material to be torrefied is traversed by a gas stream circulating at high
speed. See http://www.techtp.com/patents.htm

more:

Pentananunt, R. ,Rahman, A.N.M.M. and Bhattacharya, S.C.
(1990), Upgrading of biomass by means of torrefaction, Energy, Vol.15,
No.12, pp.1175-1179.

Fonseca Felfli, F, Luengo, C.A., Bezzon G. and Beaton Soler, P. (1998),
Bench unit for biomass residues torrefaction, Biomass for Energy and
Industry, Proceedings of the International Conference, W¸rzburg, Germany,
8-11 June 1998, Ed. by Kopetz, Weber, Palz, Chartier and Ferrero,
C.A.R.M.E.N., Rimpar Germany, 1998, p.1593-1595.

Fonseca Felfli, F, Luengo, C.A., Bezzon G., Beaton Soler, P. and Suros Mora,
W.(1998), A numerical model for biomass torrefaction, Biomass for Energy and
Industry, Proceedings of the International Conference, W¸rzburg, Germany,
8-11 June 1998, Ed. by Kopetz, Weber, Palz, Chartier and Ferrero,
C.A.R.M.E.N., Rimpar Germany, 1998, p.1596-1599.

==============

Tom Reed said "However, even better than roasting the wood would be roasting
followed by densification to pellets or briquettes while it is in its hot,
weak state. Should reduce the energy for briquetting by a factor of 2-5.
(See our 1981 paper.)

Where is this paper ? on line ?

We could also produce the briquettes first (e.g., from "preheated" sawdust &
bark) and then torrefy the briquettes. Which is "better" ? Please see page
66 of Section
7.4 of Carbonization & Torrefaction of Briquettes at
http://www.rwedp.org/acrobat/rm23.pdf

RWEDP Report No. 23 REGIONAL WOOD ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IN ASIA
GCP/RAS/154/NET Proceedings OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON BIOMASS
BRIQUETTING NEW DELHI, INDIA (3- 6 APRIL 1995).

best regards to all,

Jim Arcate
Transnational Technology
www.techtp.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <arcate@email.msn.com>; <gasification@crest.org>; <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: Torrefied Wood (TW)

Dear Jim et al:

The French know most about this, so the following is off the top of my head
and I applaud your effort to assemble better data on your site. Run it by
me if you like.

By "roasting" wood and other biomass at about 250 C (?) one removes physical
water, plus some water and CO2 of constitution and produces a fuel with ~25
MJ/kg (?) rather than the typical 18 MJ of 10% moisture fuel. This is
better for storing, shipping and burning biomass.

The roasted wood has a chocolate color and ignites instantly with a match.
I believe the origins come from charcoal making in piles where the outer few
pieces haven't gone all the way to charcoal, but are great cooking wood.
They are sometimes called "brands".
I became interested in Torrefied wood about 1980 and have followed its
fortunes out of the corner of my eye. (Does anyone know the derivation of
"torrified"? - sounds like vacuumified rather than roastedified.)

I believe a plant operated for a while in Spain, but the poor economics of
all biomass in a period of low oil costs may have shut it down.

However, even better than roasting the wood would be roasting followed by
densification to pellets or briquettes while it is in its hot, weak state.
Should reduce the energy for briquetting by a factor of 2-5.
(See our 1981 paper.)

Keep me posted....

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC

>>
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed May 3 08:54:19 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Warning on: bunsen burner flame temp
Message-ID: <28.51cfc87.26417b47@cs.com>

Dear Casie et al:

You need to be warned that this is a very complicated subject and I have been
dancing around in the answer for 50 years.

When gas burns a certain amount of heat is released and that heat is
distributed amongst the combustion products, the CO2, and H2O from combustion
of the gas; the N2 from the air if exactly the right mixture is used; and
excess air for too lean a mixture and excess CO and H2 if too rich a mixture
is used.

For the perfect mixture the "adiabatic flame temperature" is around 3000 C
for oxygen flames and 2000 C for air flames. THese temperatures are all
listed for various gases in the North American Combustion Handbook.

However, in order to measure the temperature it is necessary to use "sodium
line reversal or other fancy techniques.

If you put a wire or thermocouple in the flame it will reach a temperature
such that the heat from the flame is exactly balanced by the heat loss by
radiation or other cooling. That is NOT the flame temperature. However,
naive people often think it is.

So your project could take the rest of your life!

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 4/29/00 10:08:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
CCDream19@aol.com writes:

<<

Hi, Im doing a lab in my chemistry class where we have to find the
temperature of a bunsen burner flame. We can use any materials in the lab
station and by finding the melting point of some chemicals we've determined
its between 1063- and 1535 degrees C. But I dont know where do go from here
to find the exact temp. My teacher is hinting at using a calorimeter and
water for something but I'm lost. If you have any suggestions I would
greatly
appreciate it! Thanks!
Casie

>>
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed May 3 20:33:22 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Natural Capitalism
Message-ID: <99.452c25c.26421f28@cs.com>

Dear Crest members:

(If this has appeared here before, accept my apologies).

22 years ago Amory Lovins wrote several books that fundamentally changed the
wa that the utility industries looked at their business. He and wife Hunter
have founded the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, CO to teach and
experiment on sustaina ability.

Now Paul Hawken, Amory and Hunter have written a book "Natural Capitalism"
(Little Brown, 1999) that may have an even greater impact. I am currently
reading a short version in the Harvard BUsiness Review (Reprint 99309) and
you can see summaries of their new philosophy at www.natural capitalism.org.

Briefly, they advocate

o Radically increasing the productivity of natural resources

o A shift to biologically inspired production models and materials

o A move to a "service-and-flow" business model (such as selling
illumination rather than light bulbs)

o Major reinvestment in our natural capital

Peter Senge, (author of the Fifth Disciple) said "If Adam Smith's "Wealth of
Nations" was the bible for the first Industrial Revolution, then "Natural
Capital" may well prove to be it for the next."

CHeck out the website and see if this starts a brushfire of discussion.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

From Mbobker at aol.com Wed May 3 22:44:50 2000
From: Mbobker at aol.com (Mbobker@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Natural Capitalism
Message-ID: <df.3dac9f5.26423b82@aol.com>

Reed -

Your brief summary misses what, to practitioners in the field, may be one of
the most stimulating and controversial points of discussion in the book: to
tackle first those energy measures which, by usual project evaluation
procedures, have the poorest investment returns. The poorest returns, that
is, if we look at a project just standing on its own, which is what is
normally done. But if you sort of "stand the problem on its head" and look
at the system-wide effects, as Amory, Hunter and Paul suggest, it turns out
that it is these very same investments have the greatest system impacts.

Using a simplified metaphor, you would typically tune the boiler (best
payback) and, well, maybe never replace the windows, not until you had to for
other reasons (like rain coming in). By the logic presented, to maximize the
system impact replace the windows and....perhaps...huh?....never tune the
boiler? But really, if we look at all measures together and assume that they
will all get done in a reasonably close time frame, then the order shouldn't
make any difference. It is just a matter of justifying how deep an
investment you can convince the money-guys to make.

Regards,

Mike Bobker
NYC

From carbex at rdsor.ro Sun May 7 13:53:56 2000
From: carbex at rdsor.ro (Cornel Ticarat)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Sparks extinguisher.
Message-ID: <200005071753.KAA01046@secure.crest.net>

Dear Stovers,

I plan to make a retort for producing charcoal, using indirect heating
method. I have allready started to build it. In order to get the maximum
benefit from the sistem, I want to use the hot flue gases resulted from the
wood firebox to pre-dry first the wood. The problem is in this case with
the sparks coming out of the wood firebox heating the retort. There is the
danger of ignition of the wood to be pre-dryed which is located in
pre-dryer. As far as I know there are some simple devices (or methods ?) to
extinguish the sparks coming out from a fire wood.
Should anyone of you give me some information on this, I would be very
grateful to him.

Best regards,

Cornel Ticarat

From dstill at epud.org Sun May 7 15:02:18 2000
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: latest stove work
Message-ID: <000a01b54cd1$a1315f80$252b74d8@default>

Dear Stovers,

Thought that I'd do a quick update on Aprovecho's stove work. We are working
with a bunch of organizations in the U.S., Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala,
and Bolivia trying out different variations of multiple pot stoves with
chimneys.

Using multiple pots in line between the combustion chamber and the chimney
is an old concept. Don O'Neal sent us a picture of just such a stove built
in the U.S. in the 1700's!

The classic problems in a lot of these stoves was incomplete combustion
coupled with poor heat transfer to the pot. Dr. Winiarski's L shaped highly
insulated combustion chamber and internal chimney helps to clean up
combustion when added to the stove.

The 10" high internal chimney ends just underneath the griddle or first pot.
Heat is always forced to scrape against the griddle or pot and the heat flow
path is insulated either with pumice rock or wood ash.

Efficiencies can climb up to the 40% range if heat contacts the sides as
well as bottom of the pots. Griddle stoves are obviously much less
efficient. However, the cultural needs are different in different places and
griddle stoves are liked and used whereas submerged pot stoves may be less
well liked. We hope to test the submerged pot concept in years to come. If
well built, it has many advantages:

1.) twice as efficient as a griddle stove
2.) potentially safer as pots cannot be knocked off
3.) the top of the stove does not have to be expensive steel
4.) the pot full of water keeps relatively cool, (300F) absorbs heat, and
lowers temperatures in surrounding areas which prolongs longevity of
materials.
5.) the comal (tortilla griddle) can fit into the pot hole
6.) an oven added after the last pot can reduce exit temperatures and
further increase stove efficiency
7.) only a few internal stove pieces get really hot, the rest of the highly
insulated stove can be made from normal inexpensive materials. Both
refractory clay and cement seem to work well for the high temperature parts.
8.) people are used to very inefficient stoves; a truly efficient stove uses
so much less wood that hopefully people may put up with differences like
sunken pots.

We will be testing both the Dona Justa type stove mentioned above and the
simpler Rocket stove with Dr. Mark Bryden and his teaching assistant in June
here in Oregon. We hope to determine how the stoves are working so that we
can improve both. As we learn things, we'll pass them on to the list.

By the way, Dr. Winiarski spent an extra month in Nicaragua working on a
kiln/incinerator located in a recycling center in Managua. Larry, Peter and
Mike from Aprovecho received funding from Forest, Trees and People to assist
Prolena/Nicaragua and Rogerio Miranda to set up a factory building Justa
type stoves. A lot of good work was accomplished. Rogerio may end up
building lots of stoves!

Larry had built a simple but very large kiln/incinerator before to reduce
the pollution from the open burning of garbage. We built another test model
here at the research center and it is impressive! Big and very clean
burning, basically it is a very high, large diameter Rocket stove elbow
coupled to an equally high, large cyclone. We are testing it now to see how
high we can get temperatures in the kiln. Larry hopes that it may be useful
in using trash to produce necessary goods while reducing the problem of
trash burning which often happens in dumps. We like it because you can build
it very quickly and it may be a fuel efficient kiln if we use the heat in
the chimney to warm water.

This looks to be a very eventful summer. Please feel invited to visit
whenever you're passing by.

Best,

Dean Still
Aprovecho Research Center
80574 Hazelton Road
Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424
541 942-8198

From larcon at sni.net Mon May 8 13:26:27 2000
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Forwarding submission from Helena Chum
Message-ID: <v01540b00b53c9d3e4f91@[204.131.233.38]>

>From: "Chum, Helena" <Helena_Chum@nrel.gov>
>To: "'Reedtb2@cs.com'" <Reedtb2@cs.com>, bioenergy@crest.org,
> gasification@crest.org, stoves@crest.org
>Subject: RE: Natural Capitalism
>Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:59:05 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Those interested in these subjects could look up a new but very interesting
>journal:
>
>Journal of Industrial Ecology from the School of Forestry and Environmental
>Studies from Yale University that is published by MIT Press. The Editors
>include Reid Leifset (Yale), David Allen (University of Texas at Austin),
>John Ehrenfeld (MIT), etc.
>
>Check it out.
>
>Helena
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Reedtb2@cs.com [mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:33 PM
>To: bioenergy@crest.org; gasification@crest.org; stoves@crest.org;
>normc@rmi.org; amoryl@rmi.org; Paulh@rmi.org
>Subject: Natural Capitalism
>
>
>Dear Crest members:
>
>(If this has appeared here before, accept my apologies).
>
>22 years ago Amory Lovins wrote several books that fundamentally changed the
>wa that the utility industries looked at their business. He and wife Hunter
>have founded the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, CO to teach and
>experiment on sustaina ability.
>
>Now Paul Hawken, Amory and Hunter have written a book "Natural Capitalism"
>(Little Brown, 1999) that may have an even greater impact. I am currently
>reading a short version in the Harvard BUsiness Review (Reprint 99309) and
>you can see summaries of their new philosophy at www.natural capitalism.org.
>
>Briefly, they advocate
>
>o Radically increasing the productivity of natural resources
>
>o A shift to biologically inspired production models and materials
>
>o A move to a "service-and-flow" business model (such as selling
>illumination rather than light bulbs)
>
>o Major reinvestment in our natural capital
>
>Peter Senge, (author of the Fifth Disciple) said "If Adam Smith's "Wealth of
>Nations" was the bible for the first Industrial Revolution, then "Natural
>Capital" may well prove to be it for the next."
>
>CHeck out the website and see if this starts a brushfire of discussion.
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF
>

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

From larcon at sni.net Wed May 10 08:35:52 2000
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Forwarding Elizabeth Anselmo on testing
Message-ID: <v01540b03b53efbfa75dd@[204.131.233.13]>

Elizabeth: I have also subscribed you to stoves.

Stovers: The rest from Elizabeth. Ron

>Dear Stovers,
>
>I would like to run a three stone stove test in a laboratory environment.
> I am using 3, 2 pound stones with 3, 2 inch diameter logs placed between
>the stones. The experiment will be done under a hood on a metal bench
>covered with kaowool. If anyone has any suggestions on tests for three
>stone stoves, I am very interested in your suggestions. I am currently
>working with Dr. Tom Reed on a gas stove project. In the process of
>characterizing our stove's heat generation, efficiency, and more, we would
>like to compare the three stone stove to our stove without reinventing the
>wheel.
>
>Please email me at your earliest convenience at eanselmo@cpc.com. Thank
>you and I look forward to your response.
>
>Regards,
>
>Elizabeth Anselmo
>Bioenergy Engineer
>Community Power Corporation
>Littleton, CO
>
>303-933-3135 x227

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

From dstill at epud.org Wed May 10 23:08:34 2000
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: testing of three stone fire
Message-ID: <000c01bfbbd1$4cb12520$2a2b74d8@default>

Dear Elizabeth,

If you use two inch in diameter sticks your fire will go out very easily and
will smoke a lot. I lived in Mexico for ten years in a village where
everyone cooked with wood. People use branches that are much smaller than
that, they build up from twigs to one half and one inch in diameter sticks.

They place the fire on top of a layer of wood ash first to insulate the fire
from the ground. Then they build a hot fast fire using small twigs and have
the fire hit the whole surface of the bottom and lick up the sides of the
pot.

The stones should be maybe 4 inches high and have lots of room between them.
Make sure that you push the tips of the wood in towards the fire. It's
difficult to learn how to make good open fires. My advice would be to
practice at least twenty times before doing the test.

In our experience an expert fire maker can score around 20% with the open
fire and depending on the wood create a smoke free fire. Please make sure
that you are using a smokeless wood since indigenous people would do the
same. Dry Fir is good. Cedar is terrible.

As you can tell from my comments the big problem with testing the open fire
is that three variables will determine results: 1.) operator skill and 2.)
type of wood used and 3.) size of pot and how much water is in it. There is
no such thing as comparability of three stone fire tests unless these three
variables are controlled. Some people, especially where wood is scarce make
very careful expert fires. Where wood is plentiful fires are made much more
lazily.

We have used groups of untrained college students but percentage
efficiencies can vary from 7% to 17%. Or experts do the tests and get high
efficiencies. In any event the problem is full of variability and has
confused the stove field for decades, in my opinion.

We would be doing ourselves a favor if the stove researchers out there
decided on one protocol.

Just to start the discussion I propose: that a trained expert do the test,
trying for best efficiency. The expert should use kiln dried Fir at least or
use a moisture meter and use wood at 12% moisture content. Sticks should all
be one half inch in diameter. The pot should be eight inches in diameter and
seven inches high. We should use five pounds of water. The stones should be
triangular in shape two inches at the base of the triangle and four inches
high. Let's use 8,600 Btu's per pound of wood. Take into account latent
(1005 Btu/pound of water) and sensible heat and rolling boil the water for
ten minutes. Let's not measure the ashes because they have been used and
should not be recounted.

Probably forgot things but it's a start.

Best,

Dean Still

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat May 13 08:08:03 2000
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: (Fwd) K.Krishna Prasad
Message-ID: <200005131207.IAA16022@adan.kingston.net>

This message was bounced and even Ronal's efforts to forward it did
not succeed. Alex

Subject: Testing 3-stone fire

Dear Elisabeth

I am glad you are testing 3 stone fire. I used to be with a group
called "Woodburning Stove Group" - WSG for short - At the Eindhoven
University of Technology in Holland. We were involved with biomass
cook stoves for nearly 15 years with project support from diverse
sources.We started our project (way back in 1980) by testing open
fires. As a matter of fact the student who did these tests started
producing efficiencies of the order 18% and more. With his result
in our "pocket" as it were, we were able to persuade the ministry
here to fork out lot of cash for our project.

Most of this work has been reported here and there. There is an
extensive paper in a book called "Wood Heat for Cooking" edited by
K.Krishna Prasad and P.Verhaart; there is a large review article in
"Advances in Heat Transfer" 1985; there is a Ph.D. thesis by Paul
Bussmann on the subject of stoves - open fire has a big chapter of
the thesis; and there are many reports from our group. I'm sure your
University has either the "Advances in Heat Transfer" or it can
access it for you with relative ease. Perhaps Tom Reed has a copy of
Wood Heat for Cooking and Bussmann's thesis.If not I can send a
reprint of the paper and a copy of the thesis.

For the rest I'm more or less in agreement with Dean Still's
thoughts. The point where we differ concerns the approach to
laboratory work. We consciously gave up the idea of mimicking the
practice in rural kitchens. It is far too complex and highly variable
and very little understanding of the processes involved in a cook
stove will emerge from such an approach. We also standardized our
testing procedures. This was essential to accommodate a regular
procession of students working with us, work in our partner lab in
Holland, and test a variety of stoves in use in developing countries
as well as new designs we developed. Much of this is discussed in
detail in the reports I mentioned earlier.

At any rate here I'll satisfy by making a few observations. We did
not go into the wilderness to fetch the stones to build the three
stone fire. We used fire bricks which was very convenient to vary the
height of the pan bottom from the base of the fire. The wood was
obtained from the carpentry shop here. We cut them to rectangular
parallellopipeds of definite sizes and dried them in an oven before
using in the tests. Pans and quantity of water were also
standardized. We also used a standard charging procedure that helped
us calculate the nominal power of stove under operation. A
fundamental benefit of all this standardization was that a new
student could learn to do the basic experiment with an afternoon's
training.

Good luck with your work and I expect we'll hear more about it in the
coming period.

With regards
K.Krishna Prasad

From larcon at sni.net Sat May 13 10:15:26 2000
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Forward of Prasad on "Testing 3-stone fire"
Message-ID: <v01540b00b5430882c379@[204.131.233.29]>

Prasad - shall I change your addressing?

Stovers: This in from Krishna Prasad

(The rest from Prasad. Ron)

Dear Elisabeth

Good luck with your work and I expect we'll hear more about it in the
coming period.

With regards
K.Krishna Prasad

From larcon at sni.net Sat May 13 13:47:15 2000
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Forward of Prasad on "Testing 3-stone fire"
Message-ID: <200005131747.KAA21881@secure.crest.net>

Stovers: This in from Krishna Prasad

Dr. Prasad: Shall I change your address?

(The rest from Prasad. Ron)

Dear Elisabeth

Good luck with your work and I expect we'll hear more about it in the
coming period.

With regards
K.Krishna Prasad

From dstill at epud.org Sat May 13 15:35:52 2000
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Reflections on testing the 3 stone fire
Message-ID: <000a01bfbc57$be76da20$422b74d8@default>

Dear Dr. Prasad and Stovers,

The Aprovecho team in Nicaragua was asked to come up with a number comparing
the efficiency of our newly introduced stove with a three stone fire. This
number was to be used in a grant proposal. We are asked to do this
frequently and it is always troublesome.

In this case, the team worked to discover how much wood was used in an
average three stone fire in the neighborhoods into which they were
introducing stoves. People in this neighborhood used very large sticks and,
on the average, used a lot of firewood to cook little amounts of food,
especially when making tortillas.

In the desert of Mexico wood is hard to gather. Women make very efficient
little fires. When Dr. Winiarski walked through the village where I was
living, he remarked that open fires were made so efficiently that
introducing even the Rocket stove would only save a small amount of fuel.
The Haybox seemed a more likely tool for saving energy because people spent
hours every day cooking beans. The Haybox is spectacular in this instance
since it does all the simmering "for free".

Taking the time to standardize the three stone fire test will not assist us
in comparing how much fire wood can be saved in a particular place by
introducing a fuel efficient wood stove. To find average use we need to do a
survey.

But, following a standard test will allow researchers to compare results
regarding the 3 stone fire. Both Eindhoven and Aprovecho tests find that the
open fire can be very efficient. If operated by an expert who desires to
save fuel, it scores higher than any high mass earthen stove that I've
tested. A well operated 3 stone fire is more efficient than our normal
plancha stove, for example. To beat the high scores of this well done 3
stone fire, you most likely need to have a low mass stove with a skirt or
directly heat multiple pots. (The most efficient type of plancha stove is
twice as efficient as a well operated 3 stone fire.)

The three stone fire can have many advantages over a stove! 1.) Heat is not
absorbed into the body of the stove. 2.) Flames directly contact the bottom
and sides of the pot, assuring good heat transfer. 3.) Sticks are usually
burnt at the tips and are pushed into the fire as the fuel is used. This
technique reduces smoke. 4.) Ash insulates the fire from the thermal mass of
the ground. 5.) On a hot, calm day or when used inside these advantages
often make the three stone fire more fuel efficient than stoves that do not
follow these design parameters.

Studying the 3 stone fire revealed to us why our Lorena stove did not score
as well in subsequent tests. Studying the 3 stone fire revealed to us the
error in our thinking, in our paradigm. We finally realized the difference
between insulation and thermal mass, for example. Studying the 3 stone fire
started to point out to us how to make stoves that would be more fuel
efficient and smoke less.

High mass stoves and the Lorena and many stoves can save fuel when compared
to how people cook using the open fire because some people make pretty
inefficient fires. Even only moderately efficient stoves can then
substantially reduce fuel use! We are comparing a moderately efficient
machine to a poorly run machine. Stoves almost always save wood.

But, when people are making good fires, the introduction of a moderately
efficient design may not save firewood. At least the stove with chimney gets
rid of very dangerous smoke! This alone is very helpful.

I think that the importance in following a standard protocol, like the
Eindhoven test, is that we all can compare notes, apples to apples not
apples to oranges. For our group, the testing of an optimal open fire was
the pivotal experience that pointed us in a new direction.

Best,

Dean Still

From larcon at sni.net Sun May 14 22:23:52 2000
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Forwarding Valerie J L Spence on charcoal production
Message-ID: <v01540b01b54464599dcf@[204.131.233.31]>

Stovers: Can anyone help Valerie?

Valerie: We are not the right site - as we concentrate on improvements to
simple stoves in developing countries. In those countries, charcoal
production is very bad - most of the input energy in the wood is lost - and
(even worse) the lost energy is simply vented as noxious and global arming
gases
- it is rarely flared. Some of us are working on stoves that make
charcoal - thereby solving both the energy loss and noxious gas problems.

My perception is that charcoal briquettes in the US are of many
different types. Possibly some are "green", some are certainly not (based
on previous statements on this list - but I have no data on this topic.
Some "stoves" list members are working on other schemes that flare the
gases and use the waste heat (ususally to dry the wood prior to
charcoaling). Hopefully some of them, and those working on charcoal-using
stoves/grills, can chime in.

Ron

>From: "Valerie J L Spence" <zenherbs@adelphia.net>
>To: <stoves@crest.org>
>Subject: charcoal sources
>Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:33:49 -0400
>
>I have been trying to find out for a couple of years now if the use of
>charcoal is "green" (environmentally responsible) or are the manufacturers
>cutting trees down in order to make the briquettes? Also, what other
>ingredients are added and how "green" are they? If you can't answer these
>questions please point me in the correct direction. thanx Val Spence
<zenherbs@adelphia.net>
>

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

From heat-win at cwcom.net Mon May 15 01:58:41 2000
From: heat-win at cwcom.net (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Forwarding Valerie J L Spence on charcoal production
In-Reply-To: <v01540b01b54464599dcf@[204.131.233.31]>
Message-ID: <391F9587.32DABC0F@cwcom.net>

"Ronal W. Larson" wrote: (snip)

> Stovers: Can anyone help Valerie?
>
> >From: "Valerie J L Spence" <zenherbs@adelphia.net>
> >To: <stoves@crest.org>
> >Subject: charcoal sources
> >Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:33:49 -0400
> >
> >I have been trying to find out for a couple of years now if the use of
> >charcoal is "green" (environmentally responsible) or are the manufacturers
> >cutting trees down in order to make the briquettes?

It's basically 'green' if it is the product of sustainable forestry, i.e. at
least as much new growth is taking place as the weight of timber or other
biomass used. It's also both environmentally friendly and energy-efficient if
the polluting pyrolysis gases are burnt cleanly to dry the wood first as Ron
says. If you e-mail me separately I can send you information on how this is
done, though it's a complex topic you may not want to know about.

> Also, what other
> >ingredients are added and how "green" are they?

I think they are usually clay or starch, neither particularly non-green.

Regards,

Thomas

> If you can't answer these
> >questions please point me in the correct direction. thanx Val Spence
> <zenherbs@adelphia.net>
> >
>
> Ronal W. Larson, PhD
> 21547 Mountsfield Dr.
> Golden, CO 80401, USA
> 303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
> larcon@sni.net
>
> The Stoves List is Sponsored by
> Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
> Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From larcon at sni.net Mon May 15 14:50:57 2000
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Forwarding "Reecon" on funding request
Message-ID: <v01540b03b545eabc7954@[204.131.233.45]>

To: reecon@mitsuminet.com and Wycliffe:

I have added the name "reecon@mitsuminet.com" to our "stoves" list
- and that may not be appropriate over the long term. But I feel you may
need to listen in to the full list discussion for awhile. In general, we
are very short of funds to do stoves work. But there are some on the list
who can work with you. They will need to know more about where you are
located and how large an organization you are working with.

To: Stovers - Anyone able to help?

The rest from Wycliffe. Ron

>
>Dear Sir/Madam,
>
>We are interested in diseminating stoves in the rural areas through, =
>Women groups and church Organisations and also through Schools.
>
>We are however unable to do so due to the limitation in funds, if you =
>know of any organisations we could ask for assistance we would be very =
>thankfull if you lety us know there adress so that we can submit our =
>proposals.
>
>Thank You,
>Yours Truly,
>Wycliffe N.Musungu.
>Programme Officer, GLOVIKO - NGO.

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

From apro at efn.org Mon May 15 17:55:43 2000
From: apro at efn.org (aprovecho research center)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: request for info for refractory ceramic in Southern Kenya
In-Reply-To: <000c01bfbbd1$4cb12520$2a2b74d8@default>
Message-ID: <NDBBILCHKLMGLNKCOFJCKEDOCCAA.apro@efn.org>

Hi Stove folks.
Loooking for information about refractory ceramic options and availability
in Southern Kenya. WE a have a friend who is interested in working on
stoves there. If anyone has names and addresses of ceramicists in Kenya or
of organizations who are working with the the improved ceramic Jiko in
Kenyan, I would love to recieve them.
Any info would be a great help.
Peter Scott
Aprovecho REsearch CEnter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stoves@crest.org [mailto:owner-stoves@crest.org]On Behalf Of
Dean Still
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 10:17 PM
To: eanselmo@cpc.com
Cc: stoves@crest.org
Subject: testing of three stone fire

Dear Elizabeth,

We would be doing ourselves a favor if the stove researchers out there
decided on one protocol.

Probably forgot things but it's a start.

Best,

Dean Still

From karve at wmi.co.in Wed May 17 14:03:13 2000
From: karve at wmi.co.in (karve)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Reflections on testing the 3 stone fire
In-Reply-To: <000a01bfbc57$be76da20$422b74d8@default>
Message-ID: <3922D368.449BA18B@wmi.co.in>

Stovers,
I have been following the very interesting interaction regarding three stone
fire, and discussed the issue with my colleagues having long standing field
experience. The following are some of the thoughts that emerged from this
discussion.
In many rural households in India, a fixed two pothole chimenyless mud stove
is traditionally used. After the cooking is over for dinner at night, the women
place a big pot filled with water on the stove. Traditionally this is a special
pot made of copper and has a wide bottom and a very narrow mouth. A lid is
placed on the pot and the whole thing is covered with gunny sacks. The heat of
the stove body heats up the water enough to be used for bathing in the morning.
I have myself seen that in many houses, there is a small cavity at the base
of the mud stove, where women store things like salt, matchbox, etc., --things
that should be kept free from moisture.
As I reported some time back, we have developed a mud stove with an in-built
hotbox which actually makes use of the heat going into the stove body.
It is also a common experience that fuel is easier to ignite in a warm
stove than in a cold stove.
The point I am trying to make is that the heat going into the stove body is
not necessarily a 'waste'. (Even if the people in the house do not make use of
this heat, the household cat uses it to keep warm in winter!) Our field workers
advise the rural users to continue with their traditional practices of making
use of the heated stove body even with the improved models. If they are not in
the habit of putting water onto the warm stove at night, we advise them to put
the next days fuel on it, so as to reduce the moisture content in the
wood/biomass.
In every aspect of life, one important aim of R&D is to develop 'user
friendly' technology- technology that is easier to handle and does not require
special skills for efficient functioning. In that sense, irrespective of whether
three stone fire is traditionally being used efficiently or not, use of a
well-designed enclosed stove would definitely be an advancement because it is
much easier to 'poorly run' a three stone stove than a properly designed
enclosed stove. That is another advantage of improved stoves besides taking the
stove emissions out of the house.
Regards,
Priyadarshini Karve

begin:vcard
n:Karve;Priyadarshini
tel;fax:-
tel;home:91 020 5423258
tel;work:91 020 5442217/4390348/4392284
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://members.tripod.com/ARTI_India/index.html
org:Appropriate Rural Technology Institue (ARTI)
version:2.1
email;internet:karve@wmi.co.in
title:Member
note:ARTI is an NGO undertaking research projects to study, develop, standardise, implement, commercialise and popularise innovative appropriate rural technologies with special emphasis on making traditional rural enterprises more profitable and generating new employment opportunities through introduction of novel business possibilities in rural areas.
adr;quoted-printable:;;2nd Floor, Maninee Apartments,=0D=0AOpposite Pure Foods Co., Dhayarigaon,;Pune,;Maharashtra;411 041;India
fn:Dr. Priyadarshini Karve
end:vcard

From JF at ssvh.se Thu May 18 10:06:27 2000
From: JF at ssvh.se (Jeff Forssell)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: SV: testing of three stone fire
Message-ID: <c=SE%a=_%p=SSVH%l=EXCHANGE-000518140614Z-18829@exchange.ssvh.se>

How about more specifics about the pot: the form, material, lid (or
not), whether it is polished clean or has a "normal" (=?) black layer.

In Tanzania and Rwanda the most common pots are the simple spun aluminum
ones: flat bottom (or not so flat after a year), cylindrical sides,
level outward bent top rim about 1½-2 cm wide.

Speaking of "cm" am I the only one wondering whether Pounds BTUs and
Inches are the standard units in this research field. (No big question
when you have access to spreadsheets etc).

2½liter (5 pounds) of water sounds like a rather common amount for a
family meal.

Rolling boils lower boundary is probably fairly clear but what is
"Sensible heat"? As to characterizing a boils intensity, I have some
memory of a Chinese tea recipe that mentioned "fisheyes" and the the
size of the bubbles. Maybe with a standard pot size and water amount,
which would give a standard depth, the size of the bubbles when they
reach the surface might be a good measure of boil intensity.

The best measure of absorbed heat otherwise is of course how much water
has evaporated (though that´s not the usual goal when cooking)

The 2 inch base of the stones sounds very narrow compared with all the 3
stones I´ve seen in Tanz, Rwa.

Isn't the BTU/pound dependent on the type of wood? (Maybe it "follows
the density" so it doesn't very much {for the same moisture content})
********
Jeff Forssell (double s)
Swedish National Institute for Distance Education (SSVH)
Box 3024
S-871 03 HÄRNÖSAND /Sweden
+46(0)611-55 79 48 (Work) +46(0)611-55 79 80 (Fax Work)
+46(0)611-22 1 44 (Home) (070- 35 80 306 mobil)
Gamla Karlebyvägen 14 / 871 33 Härnösand
e-mail: every workday: jf@ssvh.se (travel, visiting:
jeff_forssell@hotmail.com)
Personal homepage: http://www.torget.se/users/i/iluhya/index.htm
My village technology page: http://home.bip.net/jeff.forssell
ICQ #: 55800587
voice & fax box: +46 (0) 611- 33 77 22

----------
Från: Dean Still[SMTP:dstill@epud.org]
Skickat: den 11 maj 2000 05:09
Till: eanselmo@cpc.com
Kopia: stoves@crest.org
Angående: testing of three stone fire

Dear Elizabeth,

If you use two inch in diameter sticks your fire will go out very easily
and
will smoke a lot. I lived in Mexico for ten years in a village where
everyone cooked with wood. People use branches that are much smaller
than
that, they build up from twigs to one half and one inch in diameter
sticks.

They place the fire on top of a layer of wood ash first to insulate the
fire
from the ground. Then they build a hot fast fire using small twigs and
have
the fire hit the whole surface of the bottom and lick up the sides of
the
pot.

The stones should be maybe 4 inches high and have lots of room between
them.
Make sure that you push the tips of the wood in towards the fire. It's
difficult to learn how to make good open fires. My advice would be to
practice at least twenty times before doing the test.

In our experience an expert fire maker can score around 20% with the
open
fire and depending on the wood create a smoke free fire. Please make
sure
that you are using a smokeless wood since indigenous people would do the
same. Dry Fir is good. Cedar is terrible.

As you can tell from my comments the big problem with testing the open
fire
is that three variables will determine results: 1.) operator skill and
2.)
type of wood used and 3.) size of pot and how much water is in it. There
is
no such thing as comparability of three stone fire tests unless these
three
variables are controlled. Some people, especially where wood is scarce
make
very careful expert fires. Where wood is plentiful fires are made much
more
lazily.

We have used groups of untrained college students but percentage
efficiencies can vary from 7% to 17%. Or experts do the tests and get
high
efficiencies. In any event the problem is full of variability and has
confused the stove field for decades, in my opinion.

We would be doing ourselves a favor if the stove researchers out there
decided on one protocol.

Just to start the discussion I propose: that a trained expert do the
test,
trying for best efficiency. The expert should use kiln dried Fir at
least or
use a moisture meter and use wood at 12% moisture content. Sticks should
all
be one half inch in diameter. The pot should be eight inches in diameter
and
seven inches high. We should use five pounds of water. The stones should
be
triangular in shape two inches at the base of the triangle and four
inches
high. Let's use 8,600 Btu's per pound of wood. Take into account latent
(1005 Btu/pound of water) and sensible heat and rolling boil the water
for
ten minutes. Let's not measure the ashes because they have been used and
should not be recounted.

Probably forgot things but it's a start.

Best,

Dean Still

From kmbryden at iastate.edu Thu May 18 11:18:43 2000
From: kmbryden at iastate.edu (kenneth mark bryden)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Fwd: SV: testing of three stone fire
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20000518101537.00c8b4f0@kmbryden.mail.iastate.edu>

Jeff Forssell wrote:

>Isn't the BTU/pound dependent on the type of wood? (Maybe it "follows
>the density" so it doesn't very much {for the same moisture content})

For dried, common woods energy content varies surprisingly little. Most
fall within +/-5% of the mean. However it would still be good account for
this in the analysis.

Mark Bryden
___________________________________________________________
Mark Bryden, Ph.D. Assistant Professor
kmbryden@iastate.edu Iowa State University
ph: 515-294-3891 3030 Black Engineering Bldg
fax: 515-294-3261 Ames, Iowa 50011-2161
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From rteretap at nbnet.co.ke Fri May 19 00:52:44 2000
From: rteretap at nbnet.co.ke (Rural Technology Enterprises)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: request for info for refractory ceramic in Southern Kenya
In-Reply-To: <000c01bfbbd1$4cb12520$2a2b74d8@default>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20000519075434.00686828@nbnet.co.ke>

At 02:54 PM 5/15/00 -0700, aprovecho research center wrote:
>Hi Stove folks.
>Loooking for information about refractory ceramic options and availability
>in Southern Kenya. WE a have a friend who is interested in working on
>stoves there. If anyone has names and addresses of ceramicists in Kenya or
>of organizations who are working with the the improved ceramic Jiko in
>Kenyan, I would love to recieve them.
>Any info would be a great help.
>Peter Scott
>Aprovecho REsearch CEnter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stoves@crest.org [mailto:owner-stoves@crest.org]On Behalf Of
>Dean Still
>Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 10:17 PM
>To: eanselmo@cpc.com
>Cc: stoves@crest.org
>Subject: testing of three stone fire
>
>
>Dear Elizabeth,
>
>If you use two inch in diameter sticks your fire will go out very easily and
>will smoke a lot. I lived in Mexico for ten years in a village where
>everyone cooked with wood. People use branches that are much smaller than
>that, they build up from twigs to one half and one inch in diameter sticks.
>
>They place the fire on top of a layer of wood ash first to insulate the fire
>from the ground. Then they build a hot fast fire using small twigs and have
>the fire hit the whole surface of the bottom and lick up the sides of the
>pot.
>
>The stones should be maybe 4 inches high and have lots of room between them.
>Make sure that you push the tips of the wood in towards the fire. It's
>difficult to learn how to make good open fires. My advice would be to
>practice at least twenty times before doing the test.
>
>In our experience an expert fire maker can score around 20% with the open
>fire and depending on the wood create a smoke free fire. Please make sure
>that you are using a smokeless wood since indigenous people would do the
>same. Dry Fir is good. Cedar is terrible.
>
>As you can tell from my comments the big problem with testing the open fire
>is that three variables will determine results: 1.) operator skill and 2.)
>type of wood used and 3.) size of pot and how much water is in it. There is
>no such thing as comparability of three stone fire tests unless these three
>variables are controlled. Some people, especially where wood is scarce make
>very careful expert fires. Where wood is plentiful fires are made much more
>lazily.
>
>We have used groups of untrained college students but percentage
>efficiencies can vary from 7% to 17%. Or experts do the tests and get high
>efficiencies. In any event the problem is full of variability and has
>confused the stove field for decades, in my opinion.
>
>We would be doing ourselves a favor if the stove researchers out there
>decided on one protocol.
>
>Just to start the discussion I propose: that a trained expert do the test,
>trying for best efficiency. The expert should use kiln dried Fir at least or
>use a moisture meter and use wood at 12% moisture content. Sticks should all
>be one half inch in diameter. The pot should be eight inches in diameter and
>seven inches high. We should use five pounds of water. The stones should be
>triangular in shape two inches at the base of the triangle and four inches
>high. Let's use 8,600 Btu's per pound of wood. Take into account latent
>(1005 Btu/pound of water) and sensible heat and rolling boil the water for
>ten minutes. Let's not measure the ashes because they have been used and
>should not be recounted.
>
>Probably forgot things but it's a start.
>
>Best,
>
>Dean Still
>
>The Stoves List is Sponsored by
>Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
>Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>The Stoves List is Sponsored by
>Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
>Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>

Please contact us with specifics as to what you need on improved ceramic
stoves and we can see where we are going to help.

Regard
Enos for Rural Technology

From btremeer at dds.nl Fri May 19 17:55:32 2000
From: btremeer at dds.nl (Grant Ballard-Tremeer)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Elizabeth Anselmo on testing the three stone fire
In-Reply-To: <v01540b03b53efbfa75dd@[204.131.233.13]>
Message-ID: <LMBBLPFKOFEHFDOEMIGHOEDOCKAA.btremeer@dds.nl>

Dear Elizabeth

I'm making my comments rather late in this discussion... it looks as if you
have received excellent advice from the 'stoves' list already. You may like
to take a look at my thesis, which covers testing methods in quite some
detail. I also looked at the many of the parameters that might affect
performance and compared a tripod stove with improved stoves - you can read
the entire thesis from links on my homepage www.energy.demon.nl. More
important than the size of wood and the height of the stones I believe is
the defined cooking task you choose to use. Also, as other people on the
list have pointed out, three stone fires can be operated extremely
efficiently. At the end of the cooking task the fire is rapidly extinguished
(which is hard to do in many improved stoves) or the residual heat is used
and this should preferably be born in mind which assessing impacts on
household fuel consumption.

You mentioned that you are using an extraction hood. This should be done
with care. Some of my publications cover this issue, in particular:
a) G. Ballard-Tremeer, H.H. Jawurek, The _hood method_ of measuring
emissions of rural cooking devices, Biomass and Bioenergy 16 (5) (1999) pp.
341-345.
b) G. Ballard-Tremeer, H.H. Jawurek, Comparison of five rural, wood-burning
cooking devices: efficiencies and emissions, Biomass and Bioenergy 11 (5)
(1996) pp. 419-430.
c) G. Ballard-Tremeer, H.H. Jawurek, Evaluation of the dilution chamber
method for measuring emissions of cooking devices, Biomass and Bioenergy 17
(6) (1999) pp. 481-494.

The first two can currently be downloaded free from the Elsevier energy info
site: www.energyinfo.net. By the way, this is an excellent source of
information on alternative energy, and it looks as if it will be free for a
limited time only.

I hope these comments are helpful

Best wishes
Grant

-------------------
Grant Ballard-Tremeer
64C Fairholme Road, W14 9JY, London
Tel +44-(0)20 7386 7930
Fax +44-(0)870 137 2360
Mobile +44-(0)777 391 2227
eMail btremeer@dds.nl
Personal WebPages http://www.energy.demon.nl
Household Energy Development Organisations' Network
http://www.energy.demon.nl/hedon/
-------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stoves@crest.org [mailto:owner-stoves@crest.org]On Behalf Of
Ronal W. Larson
Sent: 10 May 2000 12:47
To: stoves@crest.org
Cc: Elizabeth Anselmo ]
Subject: Forwarding Elizabeth Anselmo on testing

Elizabeth: I have also subscribed you to stoves.

Stovers: The rest from Elizabeth. Ron

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

From carbex at rdsor.ro Sun May 21 07:51:36 2000
From: carbex at rdsor.ro (Cornel Ticarat)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Pressure for charcoal.
Message-ID: <200005211151.EAA16943@secure.crest.net>

Hello stovers!

I am trying to build a retort for producing charcoal using indirect method
(i.e. with a retort placed inside the kiln).
As far as I know there are some pressure generated inside the retort during
the process. Does anyone know which is the appropriate level of this
pressure required to be kept?
I would be very gratefull to anyone of you for this information.

Best regards,

Cornel
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From jovick at vogon.capescott.net Mon May 22 13:34:57 2000
From: jovick at vogon.capescott.net (John Flottuick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: Charcoal
Message-ID: <000801bfc3fa$72c337e0$6fb8fea9@computer>

May 22, 2000

Dear Stoves

I have been trying to return a message to Professor
Grover. Has he got a new E-Mail addresse?

Sincerly John Flottvik

From willing at mb.sympatico.ca Mon May 22 18:18:23 2000
From: willing at mb.sympatico.ca (Scott Willing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:33 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
Message-ID: <200005222218.e4MMIE229419@list1.mts.net>

Hiya,

When I joined this list, I had no idea that there would be so much
exotic traffic about what are (to me) some really far-flung and highly
technical issues. Mostly I watch in some awe and keep my mouth
shut.

So I almost hesitate to ask...

I'm up to my neck in research for the design of a rural home in
Canada (about 51 degrees north, edge of the prairies, brutal
winters). It will be small, superinsulated (most likely strawbale,
though the jury's out) and if the budget can stand it, independent
and off the grid.

There's quite a lot of trembling aspen on the property. I guess it
doesn't have much heating value, but it's there in spades along with
a bit of birch, and I sincerely hope that two people in a small
dwelling, living a conserver lifestyle, won't put much of a dent in it.

An early assumption was that we would use a masonry heater to
make up the shortfall from passive solar design for space heating,
though in a small space, some knowledgeable folks have indicated
that this may turn out to be overkill.

In any case I will allow for the eventual installation of a masonry
heater in the design of the pad etc., but perhaps start out using the
most efficient wood-burning iron space-heating stove that I can buy
and see how it goes.

Now I'm trying to assess the practicality, environmental impact and
other considerations re: using a wood-burning cookstove, and I'm
not finding a lot of information. I can't imagine a wood-burning
cookstove being a very efficient device. The irony of having a
masonry heater or EPA-rated wood-burning space heater side by
side with a smouldering creosote generator is not lost on me - but I
have no idea if a cookstove need necessarily be thus.

And in considering the use of a wood-burning cookstove in the first
place, It seems far too much to hope for that I might get away with
using it both for cooking and space heating. Again, in a small
superinsulated space this may be plausible, though perhaps not
advisable. I simply don't have a clue.

So I'm looking for information on what I would call the "classic"
North American woodburning cookstove. Are there books? Does
anyone still make them? Are there modern versions thereof? Made
out of jewel-encrusted platinum for the 5000sq ft "cabin" of the well-
to-do, or for real people? Or if I want one of these babies is it a
case of trying to buy and/or restore an old one? What to look for in
this case? Is this just a bad idea?

I humbly request your help. I certainly don't expect anyone to
address all these questions directly, but if you could recommend
any web sites, books or other sources of information that might fill
in some blanks, I will add them to my growing library.

Thanks sincerely,
Scott Willing
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni Mon May 22 21:51:40 2000
From: rmiranda at sdnnic.org.ni (Rogerio Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000522195317.00a9e680@205.218.248.130>

Scott: take a look at http://www.woodheat.org/. there you will find very
useful info about your questions, and specificaly about northamerica
woodheating.

rogerio miranda
nicaragua

>X-Authentication-Warning: secure.crest.net: majordomo set sender to
owner-stoves@crest.org using -f
>From: "Scott Willing" <willing@mb.sympatico.ca>
>To: stoves@crest.org
>Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:14:04 -0500
>Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
>Reply-to: willing@mb.sympatico.ca
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
>Sender: owner-stoves@crest.org
>
>Hiya,
>
>When I joined this list, I had no idea that there would be so much
>exotic traffic about what are (to me) some really far-flung and highly
>technical issues. Mostly I watch in some awe and keep my mouth
>shut.
>
>So I almost hesitate to ask...
>
>I'm up to my neck in research for the design of a rural home in
>Canada (about 51 degrees north, edge of the prairies, brutal
>winters). It will be small, superinsulated (most likely strawbale,
>though the jury's out) and if the budget can stand it, independent
>and off the grid.
>
>There's quite a lot of trembling aspen on the property. I guess it
>doesn't have much heating value, but it's there in spades along with
>a bit of birch, and I sincerely hope that two people in a small
>dwelling, living a conserver lifestyle, won't put much of a dent in it.
>
>An early assumption was that we would use a masonry heater to
>make up the shortfall from passive solar design for space heating,
>though in a small space, some knowledgeable folks have indicated
>that this may turn out to be overkill.
>
>In any case I will allow for the eventual installation of a masonry
>heater in the design of the pad etc., but perhaps start out using the
>most efficient wood-burning iron space-heating stove that I can buy
>and see how it goes.
>
>Now I'm trying to assess the practicality, environmental impact and
>other considerations re: using a wood-burning cookstove, and I'm
>not finding a lot of information. I can't imagine a wood-burning
>cookstove being a very efficient device. The irony of having a
>masonry heater or EPA-rated wood-burning space heater side by
>side with a smouldering creosote generator is not lost on me - but I
>have no idea if a cookstove need necessarily be thus.
>
>And in considering the use of a wood-burning cookstove in the first
>place, It seems far too much to hope for that I might get away with
>using it both for cooking and space heating. Again, in a small
>superinsulated space this may be plausible, though perhaps not
>advisable. I simply don't have a clue.
>
>So I'm looking for information on what I would call the "classic"
>North American woodburning cookstove. Are there books? Does
>anyone still make them? Are there modern versions thereof? Made
>out of jewel-encrusted platinum for the 5000sq ft "cabin" of the well-
>to-do, or for real people? Or if I want one of these babies is it a
>case of trying to buy and/or restore an old one? What to look for in
>this case? Is this just a bad idea?
>
>I humbly request your help. I certainly don't expect anyone to
>address all these questions directly, but if you could recommend
>any web sites, books or other sources of information that might fill
>in some blanks, I will add them to my growing library.
>
>Thanks sincerely,
>Scott Willing
>The Stoves List is Sponsored by
>Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
>Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
>http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
Asesor Tecnico Principal
PROLEÑA/Nicaragua
Apartado Postal C-321
Managua, Nicaragua
TELEFAX (505) 276 2015, 270 5448
EMAIL: rmiranda@sdnnic.org.ni
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From dstill at epud.org Mon May 22 22:32:28 2000
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
Message-ID: <000d01bfbd5e$6d66eaa0$142b74d8@default>

Dear Scott,

The Aprovecho straw bale 2,000 s.f. dormitory is now solely heated by an old
fashioned wood cook stove. We do most all of our cold season cooking on it
as well. The cook stove has a lot of surface area including a griddle and an
oven that can be left open. Temperatures out of the chimney are low, around
300F., most of the heat goes into the room.

We find that the large hot surface area of the cooking stove really puts out
the radiant heat. You can feel the warmth from 20 feet away. It is a better
heating stove than the insulated EPA approved stove that we started using
two years ago and then replaced. The firebricks in that sorry excuse for a
stove did not do a great deal to keep the fire hot and clean instead they
were better at blocking the radiant heat into the room. Exit temperatures
were 800F.!

The more I mess around with stoves the more I am impressed with the
importance of really dry firewood. If you let it age for two years the fires
will be hot, smoking will be greatly reduced and problems with creosote
lessened as well. How you use the stove is very probably more important than
what kind of stove you use.

We try to cut the firewood into smaller split pieces of kindling and feed
them into the fire more frequently. If you meter the fuel there is almost no
smoke. When you throw a big cold log on the fire smoke starts to pour out of
the chimney until the combustion chamber can climb back up to 1200F and burn
up the harder to combust gases like the methane.

In my opinion, a well insulated house, with less than one air exchange per
hour (being tight is more important than the super insulation, air leakage
really looses Btu's) doesn't need a heavy stove. Get the house warm and it
stays warm. Insulation and diminished air exchange takes the place of
thermal mass. Either extends the length of time the house will stay hot.
Insulation works better, I think...

Burn the wood hot, meter the fuel, keep exit temperatures below 300F. A
funky old cooking stove can do that pretty well.

Best,

Dean Still

From mheat at mha-net.org Tue May 23 08:09:12 2000
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
In-Reply-To: <200005222218.e4MMIE229419@list1.mts.net>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000523070122.00bf4540@127.0.0.1>

At 05:14 PM 2000-05-22 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:
>(snip)
>An early assumption was that we would use a masonry heater to
>make up the shortfall from passive solar design for space heating,
>though in a small space, some knowledgeable folks have indicated
>that this may turn out to be overkill.

A medium sized masonry heater could be fired with a half load of 15 kg.
Averaged over 24 hrs, this would be a heat output of 2 kW

>(snip)
>The irony of having a
>masonry heater or EPA-rated wood-burning space heater side by
>side with a smouldering creosote generator is not lost on me - but I
>have no idea if a cookstove need necessarily be thus.

I have seen modern, airtight cookstoves, operated improperly, plug up a
chimney with creosote in less than a month. On the other hand, we have been
using an older cookstove for about 20 years, and have yet to clean our
chimney except to remove a pound or so of flaky soot annually from the
basement cleanout .

>(snip)
>So I'm looking for information on what I would call the "classic"
>North American woodburning cookstove. Are there books? Does
>anyone still make them? Are there modern versions thereof?

We highly recommend the Wamsler line of cookstoves from Germany. Options
include water jackets and insulated fold down lids (so you can cook
breakfast on it and heat your domestic hot water in the summer). We have
their catalog online at:
http://mha-net.org/msb/docs/wamsler.pdf

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

From willing at mb.sympatico.ca Tue May 23 09:34:46 2000
From: willing at mb.sympatico.ca (Scott Willing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
In-Reply-To: <200005222218.e4MMIE229419@list1.mts.net>
Message-ID: <200005231334.e4NDYe208904@list1.mts.net>

Hi Norbert,

[Thanks to all contributors - I've already learned a ton of stuff and
it's only been a day since I asked.]

> >An early assumption was that we would use a masonry heater to
> >make up the shortfall from passive solar design for space heating,
> >though in a small space, some knowledgeable folks have indicated
> >that this may turn out to be overkill.
>
> A medium sized masonry heater could be fired with a half load of 15 kg.
> Averaged over 24 hrs, this would be a heat output of 2 kW

I realize that the masonry heater isn't an uncontrollable beast that
will simply fry me out of my chair. I really love the whole concept of
them. However, I'm anticipating a smallish space (perhaps 750 and
certainly no more than 1000 sq ft) in which I will also need to cook.

Checking my wallet and finding that it contains a finite amount of
cash, and imagining a situation in which frequent cooking during
the winter is, perhaps, already running the risk of overheating the
space, I wonder if I wouldn't end up thinking the masonry heater
was not the best investment of limited financial resources.

I'm still, at this point, expecting to go with a slab-on-grade
foundation, still planning on putting hydronic tubing in it, and still
planning on allowing for the installation of a masonry heater (i.e.
appropriate pad area designed for the weight etc.) but unless the
lottery ship comes in...

> >(snip)
> >The irony of having a
> >masonry heater or EPA-rated wood-burning space heater side by
> >side with a smouldering creosote generator is not lost on me - but I
> >have no idea if a cookstove need necessarily be thus.
>
> I have seen modern, airtight cookstoves, operated improperly, plug up a
> chimney with creosote in less than a month. On the other hand, we have been
> using an older cookstove for about 20 years, and have yet to clean our
> chimney except to remove a pound or so of flaky soot annually from the
> basement cleanout .

Yes, it seems clear that intelligent operation is as much or more
important than stove design. Perhaps the masonry heater -- at
least in the form of the kits available in N.A. -- is a bit of an
exception in the sense that you can't fiddle with it. Well, I suppose
you could still stuff a single, wet, 14" log into the firebox if you
really wanted to prove that any stove can be abused... ;-)

> >(snip)
> >So I'm looking for information on what I would call the "classic"
> >North American woodburning cookstove. Are there books? Does
> >anyone still make them? Are there modern versions thereof?
>
> We highly recommend the Wamsler line of cookstoves from Germany.

OK... (hatchback owner's fear of Mercedes syndrome creeping in)

> Options include water jackets

Good...

> and insulated fold down lids (so you can cook breakfast on it and
> heat your domestic hot water in the summer).

That's neat.

> We have their catalog online at:
> http://mha-net.org/msb/docs/wamsler.pdf

I feel like a real goof for not examining the mha website more
carefully. I guess I've always gone there for information about space
heating and never looked for cookstoves. <sigh>

Thanks [AGAIN, TO ALL] for your help and patience.

Cheers,
-spud

From john at gulland.ca Tue May 23 10:21:10 2000
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
In-Reply-To: <200005222218.e4MMIE229419@list1.mts.net>
Message-ID: <LPBBJBLEIKHIICEIEMANIELBCEAA.john@gulland.ca>

Scott Willing wrote,
>
> Now I'm trying to assess the practicality, environmental impact and
> other considerations re: using a wood-burning cookstove, and I'm
> not finding a lot of information. I can't imagine a wood-burning
> cookstove being a very efficient device. The irony of having a
> masonry heater or EPA-rated wood-burning space heater side by
> side with a smouldering creosote generator is not lost on me - but I
> have no idea if a cookstove need necessarily be thus.

Your instincts are right, Scott. I don't believe there are any cook stoves
on the market that have characteristics designed to burn the wood
completely. The fireboxes are just chambers to hold the fire. However, as
Dean and Norbert point out, with good fuel and careful operation, classic
cook stoves can be made to burn reasonably well, especially if they are used
primarily for cooking.

> And in considering the use of a wood-burning cookstove in the first
> place, It seems far too much to hope for that I might get away with
> using it both for cooking and space heating. Again, in a small
> superinsulated space this may be plausible, though perhaps not
> advisable. I simply don't have a clue.

I live in a rural area with a climate much like you describe and all my
friends and neighbors heat with wood and some have traditional cook stoves,
but I don't know anyone who heats in winter with their cook stove. I'm not
saying it is impossible, but it is very difficult to get an overnight burn
with a cook stove and still burn clean and smokeless. Plus, it is more work
to prepare fuel and tend a cook stove because it needs small pieces of wood
and each load is small.

> So I'm looking for information on what I would call the "classic"
> North American woodburning cookstove. Are there books? Does
> anyone still make them? Are there modern versions thereof? Made
> out of jewel-encrusted platinum for the 5000sq ft "cabin" of the well-
> to-do, or for real people? Or if I want one of these babies is it a
> case of trying to buy and/or restore an old one? What to look for in
> this case? Is this just a bad idea?

Many retailers in Canada carry two brands of cook stove: the Heartland and
Waterford. The Heartland is highly decorative with lots of nickel plating
and the Waterford is plainer, but has a much larger firebox. Unless you
want to make a career of hunting for cook stoves, I would recommend you look
at these two (or whatever else you can find at stove stores) and talk to the
retailers about them.

I don't agree with Dean's dismissal of EPA stoves. There are a couple of
million of them in operation all over North America, working fine, burning
clean, delivering about 70% net space heating efficiency and pleasing their
owners. I've been in the woodburning business since the late 1970s and I've
seen a lot of stuff come and go and heard all the outrageous performance
claims. And although I've seen just about every device available and used a
lot of them, I choose to heat my entire house (1500 sq ft plus basement)
with one medium sized EPA certified non-catalytic heater that cost between
$1000 and $1500 new, depending on finish.

Your choice is not a simple one, and there will probably be compromises
involved. And by the way, I just love masonry heaters, especially the ones
with bake ovens.

Regards,
John Gulland
The Wood Heat Organization Inc.
www.woodheat.org
A non-commercial service in support of responsible home heating with wood

From mheat at mha-net.org Tue May 23 17:34:16 2000
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000523070122.00bf4540@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000523162253.00cc48a0@127.0.0.1>

At 08:34 AM 2000-05-23 -0500, Scott Willing wrote:
(snip)

>I realize that the masonry heater isn't an uncontrollable beast that
>will simply fry me out of my chair. I really love the whole concept of
>them. However, I'm anticipating a smallish space (perhaps 750 and
>certainly no more than 1000 sq ft) in which I will also need to cook.
>
>Checking my wallet and finding that it contains a finite amount of
>cash, and imagining a situation in which frequent cooking during
>the winter is, perhaps, already running the risk of overheating the
>space, I wonder if I wouldn't end up thinking the masonry heater
>was not the best investment of limited financial resources.
>

Scott: A cookstove is all you will need. My only concern would be building
a house for an unknown client, as not everybody is prepared to give a
cookstove the amount of attention it needs (regular feeding)

>I'm still, at this point, expecting to go with a slab-on-grade
>foundation, still planning on putting hydronic tubing in it, and still
>planning on allowing for the installation of a masonry heater (i.e.
>appropriate pad area designed for the weight etc.) but unless the
>lottery ship comes in...

I'd calculate the cost effectiveness of hydronic heating carefully, since
you will essentially be putting in two heating systems, when one is all you
need.

You do need backup heat, but this can be provided by cheap electric
baseboards, assuming that they will not receive much use. It all depends on
how much you plan to heat with wood.

(snip) Well, I suppose
>you could still stuff a single, wet, 14" log into the firebox if you
>really wanted to prove that any stove can be abused... ;-)

It's been done, believe me.

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

From dstill at epud.org Wed May 24 01:11:52 2000
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: We had to add a Heat Exchanger
Message-ID: <001101bfbdbf$62272900$1a2b74d8@default>

Dear Stovers,

We had to add a large heat exchanger to our EPA approved stove to increase
the fuel efficiency and lower 800F exit temperatures. The heat exchanger was
made by placing a closed 33 gallon drum inside a closed 55 gallon steel
drum. The chimney enters at the bottom of the barrel and exits out of the
top. The hot flue gases pass up the gap between the two barrels increasing
surface area while maintaining the same cross sectional area as the original
chimney.

But then again we had bought the cheapest EPA version ($600) in a discount
hardware store which was just a box with some non functional secondary air
features.

I was wondering if heat exchangers are available for sale? I don't see them
here in Eugene. Do EPA stoves aim for any particular exit temperature? Has
anyone else been bothered by the decreased radiant heat, blocked by the fire
brick?

We are starting to play around with small fans that preheat air for
combustion above 1200F for stoves. The combustion chamber is made from
refractory cement. Is this a combination that is for sale? Seems to me that
this approach could solve a lot of problems...

Best,

Dean

From john at gulland.ca Wed May 24 08:51:40 2000
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: EPA stoves We had to add a Heat Exchanger
In-Reply-To: <001101bfbdbf$62272900$1a2b74d8@default>
Message-ID: <LPBBJBLEIKHIICEIEMANKELDCEAA.john@gulland.ca>

Dean Still wrote:
> I was wondering if heat exchangers are available for sale? I
> don't see them
> here in Eugene. Do EPA stoves aim for any particular exit temperature? Has
> anyone else been bothered by the decreased radiant heat, blocked
> by the fire
> brick?

Flue pipe mounted heat exchangers are not permitted under Canadian codes;
I'm not sure about rules in the US. They were banned because they plugged
up fast, creating a deposit of combustible creosote close to the stove
outlet where it could ignite easily and produce a chimney fire. Excessive
heat transfer from the flue pipe assembly used to cause a lot of problems,
particularly during the era of the so called airtight stove, which had
gaskets on the doors so it could be turned down low, but had no combustion
system to burn the wood properly. For this same reason, flue pipe
assemblies are limited to a maximum of 10 feet in overall length, with no
more than two 90 degree elbows.

Dean, I know you are a fan of heat transfer efficiency, but it is worth
keeping in mind that the stove is part of a total system that has to work
together and that a particular model of stove must be designed to perform
well under a variety of conditions of installation design and fuel quality,
as well as a wide range of power output to match a variable heating load.

The flue pipe assembly connected to a wood stove is part of the system heat
exchanger, accounting for up to 40% of the total heat transfer from the
system, according to one study. This being the case, outlet temperature
should be measured at the exit from the room, not the exit from the stove,
if heat loss is the reason for the measurement. Even that measurement
location would not account for heat transfer from the chimney to the heated
space.

Wood stoves depend on natural draft, which is created in the chimney by heat
in the exhaust gases. The heat given to the chimney is not waste at all,
but is the fuel the chimney needs to do its job. Witholding heat from the
chimney by cooling the flue gases too much usually results in sluggish stove
operation and the inability of its combustion system to function properly.

Theoretically, if North American chimneys were better than they are on
average -- they are lousy; poorly insulated, leaky and about half of them
run up the outside of buildings -- then stoves could have higher heat
transfer efficiency. As things stand, if stoves had bigger heat exchangers,
they wouldn't work when connected to our lousy, inefficient chimneys. It is
a truism that when a woodburning system fails to perform well, the user
blames the stove, but more often than not it is the chimney that is at
fault.

I have just scratched the surface of why North American stoves have evolved
the way they have. I would agree that they are not perfect, but a lot of
very talented people, all agressively competing with each other, have worked
to develop the range of products we have to choose from. If there was a
simple change, such as adding a bigger heat exchanger, that would make them
better and more efficient, it would have been done a long time ago. In
fact, the big heat exchanger era died off almost 20 years ago because it
only succeeded in causing a lot of problems.

Dean, it could be that the reason you are dissatisfied with your cheap stove
is that its manufacturer chose the least expensive route to achieving EPA
certification, which is to limit its turn down ratio. If a stove cannot be
turned down to a smolder during emissions testing, then its average burn
will be cleaner. This is a strategy used by some manufacturers of cheap,
small stoves because it saves them having to design and manufacture a
combustion system. Better quality stoves have better combustion systems,
which allows them to turn down more and still burn clean. Note that one of
the biggest factors in heat transfer is the velocity of exhaust gases
through the system. Slow down the gas flow and heat transfer increases
dramatically, and you don't need to add heat exchange surface area.

Well, I've already taken up too much list space with this, since it is
rather off the topic. On the other hand, maybe some of what we've learned
in North America over the past 20 years with our own wood stoves is not
completely irrelevant.

Regards,
John Gulland
The Wood Heat Organization Inc.
www.woodheat.org
A non-commercial service in support of responsible home heating with wood

From tnntpr at hermes.tue.nl Wed May 24 08:56:57 2000
From: tnntpr at hermes.tue.nl (tnntpr@hermes.tue.nl)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
In-Reply-To: <200005222218.e4MMIE229419@list1.mts.net>
Message-ID: <200005241256.OAA09600@mailhost.tue.nl>

Dear Scott

At least in theory I'm not the person to talk about your questions.
But the dialogue was too tempting to pass without a couple of
observations. The primary reason for my hesitation is that I have
only worked that too in a laboratory environment on cookstoves and
that too meant for poor of the developing world. From what I can
read, I gather your pockets are not all that deep. Still it is much
deeper than the clientele whom we had in mind.

The problem as I see is simply that combining heating and cooking in
a single device in general is unwise. My guess is that you cook for
about a couple of hours a day. Even assuming that you have some
passive heating from solar, I feel almost sure that you'll need
heating for at least 8 hours a day in periods at which you are not
busy cooking. Next you need to use the cookstove round the
year while heating probably would be required for about half
that period. What is more cooking takes place in a kitchen which
I presume will be a separate room from the living area where you
expect to spend most of your leisure time. Thus my advise would be to
go for independent devices.

I haven't the foogiest notion what designs are available on the
market. British cookery programmes often talk about the so-called
Aga. I myself have never used such a device except I have seen it in
real life in a working state many years ago in a friend's home in
England. They sounded happy about it.

I must say it was exciting to read about after spending a morning
with the latest TIME magazine about the coming future where one
not only does not have office mates but also not the exciting task of
weekly shopping - your refrigerator will take care of it for you!

Yours
Prasad
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From tnntpr at hermes.tue.nl Wed May 24 09:03:10 2000
From: tnntpr at hermes.tue.nl (tnntpr@hermes.tue.nl)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
In-Reply-To: <200005222218.e4MMIE229419@list1.mts.net>
Message-ID: <200005241302.PAA10329@mailhost.tue.nl>

Dear Scott

At least in theory I'm not the person to talk about your questions.
But the dialogue was too tempting to pass without a couple of
observations. The primary reason for my hesitation is that I have
only worked on cookstoves that too in a laboratory environment and
that too meant for poor of the developing world. From what I can
read, I gather your pockets are not all that deep. Still it is much
deeper than the clientele whom we had in mind.

I haven't the foggiest notion what designs are available on the
market. British cookery programmes often talk about the so-called
Aga. I myself have never used such a device except I have seen it in
real life in a working state many years ago in a friend's home in
England. They sounded happy about it.

From tnntpr at hermes.tue.nl Wed May 24 11:13:53 2000
From: tnntpr at hermes.tue.nl (tnntpr@hermes.tue.nl)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: EPA stoves We had to add a Heat Exchanger
In-Reply-To: <001101bfbdbf$62272900$1a2b74d8@default>
Message-ID: <200005241513.RAA24767@mailhost.tue.nl>

Dear Dean Still and John Gulland and other stovers

It looks like ages since I read such a neat presentation on chimneys
and the havoc they can create. All those who are interested in indoor
air quality in third world kitchens and want to promote it by using a
chimney will do well to take to heart the comments of John. There is
no short cut to promote indoor air quality. The only way is to design
a combustion chamber so that the wood is burnt completely, period.
This is possible to achieve by ; (a) having a grate: (b) providing
the right quantity of air (the allowable range is rather small); (c)
to split it into primary and secondary air; (d) to size the
combustion chamber properly; (e) to insulate the combustion chamber;
(f) to provide a chimney; and (g) to provide a proper damper to
control the air flow so that a reasonable turn down ratio with clean
combustion assured (chimney dampers are notoriously poor in achieving
this).

I was shocked to read John's remarks on the lousy stove designs in
the US. I somehow felt that such maladies are a specialty of third
world work.

I really would like to congratulate John on his wise thoughts.

With regards
K.Krishna Prasad
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From dstill at epud.org Wed May 24 13:45:10 2000
From: dstill at epud.org (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: More on Heat Exchangers
Message-ID: <000d01bfbde2$66ef98a0$312b74d8@default>

Dear Stovers, John, and all,

Such a good discussion. Thanks especially to John.

I envision a great heating stove as accomplishing almost total combustion
mostly by achieving a hot fierce burn. Preheated air above 1200F would very
much help but I am told that combustion chamber temperatures this high would
quickly distress the steel. That's why we're trying refractory cement
instead.

Once you are pretty much assured of clean combustion the temptation is to
get as much of that heat into the room as possible. Using a small fan, which
replaces natural convection, exit temperature out of the house can be the
same as room temperature. This type of stove, like the pellet stove, really
achieves high efficiency. BUT, a lot of people hate those fans!

I can imagine that heat exchangers when coupled to stoves producing lots of
uncombusted gases would suffer clogged up airways just as condensed gases
clog up chimneys.

The very simple large heat exchanger that we added to the EPA stove was only
added after we took the stoves temperature and found that where the chimney
exited the room internal temperatures were around 800F.

We had to do something. The students were up in arms! No good ecologist
could let so much heat just wastefully leave the room. Adding the student
built heat exchanger brought temperatures down and then decreased fuel use
dramatically. We were surprised to find that the 2" gaps in the heat
exchanger were still open and clean looking after a whole season of use. In
this case, the heat exchanger helped and did not require much cleaning. So
we liked the big industrial looking thing.

As John says, adding a heat exchanger to a bad stove could just makes things
worse. Easy to imagine and I can see where caution dictates a prescribed
action.

Let's hope that officials do not universalize their ruling and take all of
the massive heat exchanger capacity out of masonry stoves, as well...

Best,

Dean

From willing at mb.sympatico.ca Wed May 24 14:40:36 2000
From: willing at mb.sympatico.ca (Scott Willing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: The classic wood-burning cookstove
In-Reply-To: <200005222218.e4MMIE229419@list1.mts.net>
Message-ID: <200005241840.e4OIeRt00090@list1.mts.net>

Stovers,

As Art mentioned off-line "You seem to have stirred the pot..."

Many thanks for all your helpful comments. Certainly you've given
me lots of things to think about - and the less tangible "feeling of
community" is as warm as a fully-stoked stove!

I'm rather overwhelmed by the response, actually, and I won't
attempt to answer each post individually - especially as I tend to
run off at the keyboard as it is. ;-)

I conclude, from what I've read so far, that using a single device for
cooking, space and even water heating may well be doable, if
perhaps less than ideal.

Mitigating factors in my case:

Building: Our space will be small, it will be superinsulated, it will
have significant thermal mass, and interior walls will be kept to a
minimum.

Lifestyle: Two conservation-minded folks, no kids. No more than a
pair of overnight guests, and only rarely. Work at home and tend
not to go out much. (Indeed the long-term plan is to leave the
homestead as little as possible.) Don't mind a bit of "trouble" when
it comes to being directly involved in sustaining our existence - in
fact we prefer it.

[Uh-oh, tangent warning...]

IMHO a good deal of western societial problems are related to the
way that we abstract ourselves from involvement with the nitty-gritty
mechanics of staying alive. Water comes out of a tap, power
comes out of a plug, heat comes out of... that thingy downstairs.
We're literally out of touch with reality, and by extension, we're out
of touch with the majority of the world's inhabitants who haven't the
choice or the means to avoid that reality. It's a Bad Thing, Martha.

[End tangential philosophical rant.]

Bottom line: We can put up with certain "non-ideal" scenarios,
such as more frequent fire tending, that other folks might find
impractical or undesireable. The room temperature doesn't have to
be maintained at a steady 68 from January to December. (I get a
kick out of sleeping outside at -35, BTW.)

I *am*, however, trying to plan things for maximum flexibility. The
idea is to start with minimal, simple solutions, but not to be boxed
in by them, so that either I or the eventual new owner of the home
can have some choices available later on. I'd like to be free to
experiment, too.

[Look out, here he goes again...]

One of the things that infuriated me about the 50's city house I
used to own, was that everything was installed as though it was
perfect, and would never need to be accessed for upgrading or
service. Hence, upgrading and service invariably meant way more
work -- of the most frustrating sort -- than should really have been
necessary. Not that this is unusual - it's the way we build houses -
but it sucks, and I do not wish to be cursed - even after death - as I
cursed the folks who built that house. ;-)

[End rant...]

>From what I've read so far, my current working assumptions are:

- I will indeed end up with a wood-burning cookstove (chosen for
functionality over appearance),

- I will allow for a masonry heater (even in a small space, you just
can't get any more elegant - and there's *nothing* like a masonry
bake oven), but

- in its place I fully expect that an iron space heater may well sit
instead, barring a hit on the lottery, an unexpected inheritance etc.
Perhaps this will serve indefinitely, and very likely after a trial
season with the cookstove as all-purpose heating device.

- I will plumb the pad with hydronic tubing *even if I never use it*
and otherwise allow, to a reasonable degree, for the future
possibility of radiant heating, whether provided by wood, gas,
electricity <horrors>, geothermal or as yet unconceived sources.

It will be a few years at best before all this takes shape, but
eventually I will pay back the list for its kindness via accounts of
my triumphs and tribulations - unless I decide to pack in the
computer by then. ;-)

Cheers all,
-spud
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From john at gulland.ca Wed May 24 15:11:35 2000
From: john at gulland.ca (John Gulland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: EPA stoves We had to add a Heat Exchanger
In-Reply-To: <200005241513.RAA24767@mailhost.tue.nl>
Message-ID: <LPBBJBLEIKHIICEIEMANIELHCEAA.john@gulland.ca>

Prasad, everyone,

Just a comment and a clarification:

Prasad wrote:

> The only way is to design
> a combustion chamber so that the wood is burnt completely, period.
> This is possible to achieve by ; (a) having a grate:

Prasad, the grates in EPA certified stoves, when provided, are only used to
let ashes fall into an ash pan and almost never to provide combustion air.
It has been found that combustion air supplied to the fire from under a
grate produces dirty combustion. The masonry heater people found this also,
I believe. There may be other woodburning applications in which grates
might be helpful, but not it appears, in space heating devices.

> I was shocked to read John's remarks on the lousy stove designs in
> the US. I somehow felt that such maladies are a specialty of third
> world work.

It is the chimneys that I think are lousy, not so much the stoves. The
stoves are about as good as they can be in the circumstances. One of the
problems I do see in the North American market is that products are
developed for the mass market which, like it or not, demands a lot of
attention to decorative features at the expense of practical features. For
example, I see no reason why an EPA certifiable combustion system cannot be
configured and coupled to a flat cooking surface and modest bake oven. I
think space heating and cooking could be combined effectively. And I think
there could be a decent rural market for such an appliance; our
correspondent Scott is a good example of a potential purchaser. Personaly,
I think that the classic North American cook stove is way too big and poorly
arranged for our needs, having been designed for big farm houses and big
families that we don't tend to have any more. There is no way I would give
up as much floor space in my house as a traditional cooking range takes up.

Regards,
John Gulland
The Wood Heat Organization Inc.
www.woodheat.org
A non-commercial service in support of responsible home heating with wood

From english at adan.kingston.net Thu May 25 23:10:13 2000
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.english)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Grates
Message-ID: <200005260310.XAA23078@adan.kingston.net>

A response to recent comments about grates.

Stovers,
It is interesting that batch fed cordwood burners have evolved to
limit air flow up through the fuel. It would be useful to
discuss the reasons, and see if any of them are relevant for simple
continuously fed cooking stoves. The cooking stove experts, Prasad,
Dean and Grant Ballard-Tremeer, to name a few, have been promoting
under fire air, or "grates", in route to more complete combustion.

I think this is an issue worth looking at more closely. When is a
stove, a gasifier? and can the benefits be as dramatic as the
following example?

Some time ago I experimented with Approvecho's Rocket stove. I used
commercial wooden tongue depressors as a "standardized" fuel.

At first, I slid them into the stove so they extend into the
stove like the fingers on your hand, forming a grate of burning
sticks. Air flows up through and in over top of the sticks. The stove
was in a vent hood and I continuously monitored CO and CO2, while
also qualitatively observed the flames extending out of the top of
the stove. There was no pot. I found that many small flame fingers
with smoky tips was the typical result.

Next, I tried folding up the sticks and tossing them into a pile on
top of the ashes and coals in the stove. It was not a sustainable
process as the pile just kept getting bigger. However the combustion
dynamic was quiet different. The mound was noticeably air starved with
a flame boundary forming around and above it. The flame was more
billowy with no smoky tips, and CO dropped while CO2 increased in
comparison to the previous grate burning trial.

So I think that I have seen an example of a combustion dynamic
that was momentarily better than the grate based process. However, I
am still contemplating possible explanations.

Would anyone be willing to propose an explanation?

Sincerely, Alex

From mheat at mha-net.org Fri May 26 07:53:53 2000
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Grates
In-Reply-To: <200005260310.XAA23078@adan.kingston.net>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000526061529.00cbc280@127.0.0.1>

At 11:13 PM 2000-05-25 +0000, *.english wrote:
>(snip)
>
>So I think that I have seen an example of a combustion dynamic
>that was momentarily better than the grate based process. However, I
>am still contemplating possible explanations.
>
>Would anyone be willing to propose an explanation?

No explanation, but I'll offer a few tidbits that we have gleaned (at much
higher burn rates) in masonry heater and fireplace testing.

We were testing for particulates, and have enough of a database now to
state that a batch fired masonry heater, burning 15 -30 kg of cordwood
from a cold start, has about 200 - 350% more particulate emissions with a
grate than without.

We're not sure why, as we simply stopped using grates, and didn't devote
any more limited resources to proving that underfire air was undesirable.

One explanation is that most of the particulates happen during the cold
start part of the burn. In this phase, a small hot kindling fire is given
forced air by the grate, and then the flames are quenched by the pile of
cold fuel above. We have gotten the cleanest burns by paying careful
attention to the ignition sequence and geometry.

Later on in the burn, when the fire is hot, we are not sure what happens,
or if a grate is better or worse. One reason for wondering is that the
Finns did some research on these heaters at the University of Tampere in
1984 and came to the conclusion that grates were better. One of their
statements at the time was that they had a lot of expertise in burning wood
on a large scale for power generation, and that grates are always used in
this scenario. They were measuring CO, and not particulates, however.

We did some interesting testing recently, firing a heater in non-standard
conditions. We were trying to determine clearances to combustibles for
safety reasons. As a result, we overfired a heater by burning 4 batches of
25 kg back to back. There are some more details at
http://mha-net.org/msb/html/lopezi.htm

Using the normal air supply, excess air went way down once the firebox was
hot. In fact, we were getting stack oxygen in the 3 - 4% range, using
cordwood with 14% moisture. Under these circumstances, one would probably
want to look at introducing secondary air, and perhaps a grate may even be
required in order to introduce enough primary air. In normal operation,
secondary air has not proven to be of much value for masonry heaters, and
particulate emissions in the 1 g/kg range (EPA method 5) are achievable
without it.

One problem with batch fired masonry heaters is getting the coals to burn
up at the end, so that the flue damper may be closed. Here, underfire air
is advantageous. Also, the end of a batch burn is a charcoal fire, which
behaves very differently from the first part of the burn. Grates are
required in coal burning, so perhaps may have some advantages for charcoal
fires as well. We are currently looking at this.

Some other emissions testing was recently done with fireplaces. The two
fireplaces that had grates for elevating the fuel above the hearth had
significantly higher particulate emissions than the other 3 fireplaces
which burned the fuel directly on the hearth, both in open door mode and
with glass doors closed.

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

From mheat at mha-net.org Fri May 26 08:42:49 2000
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Fwd: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry Heaters
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000526074552.00a1e6c0@127.0.0.1>

>Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 07:36:30 -0400
>To: greenbuilding@crest.org, strawbale@crest.org
>From: Norbert Senf <mheat@mha-net.org>
>Subject: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry Heaters
>
>Hello Everyone:
>
>Palo Alto passed an ordinance last Monday to ban woodburning fireplaces
>that are not EPA certified. This ordinance effectively bans masonry
>heaters as well. This is because the ordinance specifies "EPA certified"
>stoves only. The EPA regulation in fact recognizes masonry heaters as
>inherently clean burning, and classes them as "non-affected facilities".
>
>Home heating through the clean burning of sustainably grown fuelwood is
>one way to reduce American greenhouse gas emissions, which are the highest
>per capita in the world. It is environmentally irresponsible for local
>councillors to ban responsible wood heating.
>
>A very substantial body of North American test data supports the claim
>that masonry heaters are the cleanest way to burn cordwood, by a
>substantial margin. Furthermore, the EPA test protocol is impossible to do
>on a masonry heater, so that they are by definition uncertifiable.
>
>Similar ordinances have already been passed in Dublin, Petaluma, and
>Northern Sonoma.
>
>San Jose has a full council meeting tentatively scheduled for June 6, and
>is almost certain to do the same thing. The Masonry Heater Association
>(MHA) wrote a letter to the Office of the City Attorney on October 26,
>1999, but has received no reply.
>http://mha-net.org/docs/sanjose01.PDF
>
>If you are in the Bay Area, one thing that you can do is download the MHA
>position paper
>http://mha-net.org/docs/position.PDF
>
>and try to get local politicians to read it.
>
>Uninformed environmental legislation is in no one's interest.
>
>Thanks for your time ............. Norbert Senf

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

From heat-win at cwcom.net Fri May 26 09:58:04 2000
From: heat-win at cwcom.net (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Fwd: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry Heaters
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000526074552.00a1e6c0@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID: <392E86AA.985518A0@cwcom.net>

Dear Norbert and Stovers,
Norbert Senf wrote (snip):
>Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 07:36:30 -0400
>To: greenbuilding@crest.org, strawbale@crest.org
>From: Norbert Senf <mheat@mha-net.org>
>Subject: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry Heaters
>
>Hello Everyone:
>
>Palo Alto passed an ordinance last Monday to ban woodburning fireplaces
>that are not EPA certified. This ordinance effectively bans masonry
>heaters as well. This is because the ordinance specifies "EPA certified"
>stoves only. The EPA regulation in fact recognizes masonry heaters
as
>inherently clean burning, and classes them as "non-affected facilities".
>
>Home heating through the clean burning of sustainably grown fuelwood
is
>one way to reduce American greenhouse gas emissions, which are the
highest
>per capita in the world. It is environmentally irresponsible for local
>councillors to ban responsible wood heating.
They may begin to understand how irresponsible their ban is and start thinking
about saving their own skins and those of their electorates if you make
them read the following:
WHY WE NEED A FORESTRY BASED NOAH’S ARK
Within a lengthy paper dated 29th March 2000 on the subject of global
energy supply William E. Rees, an ecological economist and professor at
the University of British Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning
wrote the following:
"The world is running out of oil. Recent price hikes are mere tremors
heralding the real price shock to come.
Oil "production" (i.e., extraction) peaked in North America in 1984.
Several recent studies project world oil production to peak by 2013 or
sooner, possibly as soon as 2007. Even the necessarily conservative
International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook, 1998 concurred
for the first time that global output could top out between 2009 and 2012
and decline rapidly thereafter. IEA data project a nearly 20-per-cent
shortfall of supply relative to demand by 2020 that will have to be made
up of from "unidentified unconventional" sources (i.e., known oil-sands
deposits have already been taken into account). Other studies show
that by 2040 total oil output from all sources may fall to less than half
of today's 25-26 billion barrels of oil per year.
And running out of oil is not running out of just oil. Oil is the means
by which industrial society obtains (and overexploits) all other resources.
The world's fishing fleets, its forest sector, its mines, and its agriculture
all are powered by liquid portable fossil fuels -- 17 per cent of the U.S.
energy budget, most of it oil, is used just to grow, process, and transport
food alone. Keep in mind too that petroleum is not just a fuel. Oil
and natural gas are the raw material for medicines, paints, plastics, agricultural
fertilizers and pesticides. Since oil is directly or indirectly a
part of everything else, the scarcity of oil and the coming price shock
means higher prices all round.
Some economists argue that rising prices enable us to exploit less accessible
deposits, that the resource is "constantly renewed as it is extracted."
This is grossly misleading. The physical stock of exploitable oil is not
being "renewed." Improved technology has simply made a dwindling supply
more accessible. Abundant short-term market supplies then effectively
short-circuit the price increases that would otherwise signal impending
real scarcity, even as finite stocks are depleted.
Moreover, oil exploration is very much subject to diminishing material
returns. Despite increasing effort, we currently discover less than six
billion barrels of new oil a year, not even a quarter of present consumption.
In much of the world, oil extractors used to discover 50 barrels of oil
for every barrel consumed in drilling and pumping. Today the ratio
is five to one, heading to one for one by 2005. At that point, there will
no point in extracting oil at any price even though plenty will be left
in the ground.
What about substitutes? The fact is that no suitable substitutes
are yet in sight for the fossil fuels used in heavy farm machinery, construction
and mining equipment, diesel trains and trucks, and ocean-going freighters.
Jet aircraft cannot be powered by electricity, whatever its source.
It is also no small irony that we need high-intensity fossil fuel to produce
the machinery and infrastructure required for most alternative forms of
energy. Sunlight is simply too "dilute" to use in manufacturing the high-tech
devices and equipment required for its own conversion to heat and electricity.
Industrial civilization faces a paradox: we need oil to move beyond the
age of oil.
The human population has grown six-fold in less than 200 years.
The global economy has quintupled in less than 50. No factor has
played a greater role in the explosive growth of the human enterprise than
abundant, cheap fossil fuel. No other resource has changed the structure
of economies, the nature of technologies, the balance of geopolitics, and
the quality of human life as much as petroleum. Little wonder that
some scientists believe that passing the peak of world oil production will
be a shock to the human enterprise like no other event in history.
Population and consumption are still on a steep trajectory but the rocket
is running out of fuel."
Noah built his ark before the flood. Today we need to build an
ark by planting trees and other energy crops and constructing the facilities
needed to produce solid and liquid fuels from them before the oil needed
to do so runs out. If we wait it will be too late!
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Thomas J Stubbing
Heat-Win Limited
Ludlow, UK

From lorih at isn.net Fri May 26 09:58:53 2000
From: lorih at isn.net (Lori)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Grates
In-Reply-To: <200005260310.XAA23078@adan.kingston.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.1.20000326093455.00a77a80@mailer.isn.net>

Hello,

I am interested in using small stoves as low-tech demand water heaters, to
recharge a solar system for use in hydronic baseboard space heating for my
house. I have been a member of the list for a while, reading the archives
and learning as much as I can here and elsewhere online.

I have hesitated to post, because I bring no formal knowledge of the
subject nor practical experience with my thoughts, which have been mostly
devoted to understanding ... until Mr. English's post about grates. I would
be most grateful for any comments on the following, to see if I have
grasped the principles.

First, at present about 75% of the house is heated by a wood stove. The
stove is little more than a large cast-iron box, fire-brick lined. It has
no grate or separate ash pan. Air intake is a slot at that back, about 2"
above the floor of the stove, and about 1" high by 4" wide, with an
automatic damper. The door is on the front, large, hinged at the bottom,
and with an inward slant to it. I can start the fire with less kindling by
resting the wood against the inside door lip, like half a teepee ... in
effect, giving me a temporary grate. Closing the door prevents the kindling
from burning too fast to catch the first layer of wood. But ... if I open
the door an inch or so just after the wood has caught, I get an excellent
fire established fairly quickly, and then knock it down to burn normally
with the door closed. Until now, I've assumed I was simply giving it more
air by opening the door, and so I've been struggling to rationalize the
comments I've read onlist about limiting the air. I have noticed that,
once the fire has been going for a while, opening the door is less
effective at improving it.

If I have understood some principles correctly, it seems that air coming
in under a grate would start heating up as soon as it gets into the stove,
and heats faster as it rises, particularly as it goes through the burning
material, pushing up the smoke and lighter gases before they can ignite,
sending them and a lot of the heat right on up and out the chimney.

Now, I think what may be happening with my woodstove is: When I open the
door early in the process, the incoming air from the door is much colder
than the air in the stove. It is coming in above the fire and at a downward
slant anyway, the full width of the fire, and being colder would drop like
a stone ... effectively being a "blanket" forcing down the lighter gases to
be consumed, which then become additional fuel. Later on, the incoming air
would be much warmer, since the purpose of the stove is to transfer the
heat of the fire to the surrounding air, and particularly with the door
slanted in to the heat, so would be less of a downward force on the gases.
Any validity to this thinking?

If I transfer the foregoing thinking to the small stoves, some things start
to make sense to me. Until now, I couldn't understand the working of the
secondary air, thinking it would enter above the fire and simply rise. I
have studied Mr. Reed's sketches and pictures of his Turbo Stove until my
eyes crossed, and been unable to grasp how the upper half of the stove
works. I understand that the stoves function better if insulated, and since
the purpose is cooking, it made sense to limit the heat lost out the sides.
Now, though, I'm thinking that at the same time the insulation is
increasing the heat inside the combustion chamber, it is also isolating the
outside air from the heat, increasing the difference in temperature
significantly. So, if some of that much cooler air were introduced to the
combustion chamber above the fire ... it would drop, forcing down the gases
to be burned, even without the increased efficiency of a fan-assist. Yes?

This brings up a question that I KNOW sounds really dumb ... but I cannot
answer it with logic. If the above is more or less correct .... how would
the heat get to the top to do the cooking, if incoming cold air is pushing
everything down? If the sides of the combustion chamber are insulated, does
it move upwards by conduction through the metal of the combustion chamber
walls? What if instead of the two cans, with insulation between them, one
had three, with the insulation in the outer channel, and the middle space
being a channel for the hot air to the top? This would mean the secondary
air intake would have to cross the heated channel, warming up as it goes,
so one would want to insulate the intake, I expect.

My mind refuses to take me any further without some check on my premises. I
don't mind experimenting and making mistakes, because I'm not "handy" so
make lots of them, but my resources are too limited to just jump in without
understanding what I'm doing. Any comments or observations will be most
welcome, particularly any that explain errors in my reasoning.

Thank you in advance.

Regards,

Lori

At 07:13 PM 2000-05-25, *.english wrote:

>It is interesting that batch fed cordwood burners have evolved to
>limit air flow up through the fuel. It would be useful to
>discuss the reasons, and see if any of them are relevant for simple
>continuously fed cooking stoves. The cooking stove experts, Prasad,
>Dean and Grant Ballard-Tremeer, to name a few, have been promoting
>under fire air, or "grates", in route to more complete combustion.
>
>I think this is an issue worth looking at more closely. When is a
>stove, a gasifier?

>So I think that I have seen an example of a combustion dynamic
>that was momentarily better than the grate based process. However, I
>am still contemplating possible explanations.
>
>Would anyone be willing to propose an explanation?
>
>Sincerely, Alex

From larcon at sni.net Fri May 26 19:44:04 2000
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Forwarding Rouse on India
Message-ID: <v01540b00b554195d9a80@[204.131.233.12]>

Stovers: This is forwarding Jon Rouse - who we last heard from about 6
months ago.

Jon: One can generally increase the slumping temperature of clays by
adding quartz (sand or SiO2). Asking local potters will probably get you
the best knowledge.

I have established a new e-mail address for you.

Ron

>
>Dear Stovers,
>
>I have been silent in the group for a long time now, but have now =
>returned to the field of stove design, manufacture and dissemination. I =
>am working in Lucknow (India) in some villages, making some very basic =
>and cheap improvements to local 'traditional' stove designs, with =
>encouraging success to date. All stoves are made from mud, and we are =
>trying to localise the manufacture of all additional components; namely =
>grate and supporting rods (presently metal is being used for both). This =
>will bring down the costs of the stoves to just a few Rupees, make their =
>future dissemination easier without 'external facilitation' and create =
>some extra income opportunities for the many existing potters in the =
>area. We are also looking to make clay chimney sections, all in good =
>time...
>
>We have made some grates from clay and testing begins tomorrow. Because =
>I came here by land from Bangladesh, I have not been able to bring many =
>resources with me, and they are limited here. I am writing to the group =
>to ask what additives or techniques exist to make what is possibly quite =
>low-quality clay more suitable for the high-stress conditions in a =
>firebox. Indeed, any information or experiences would be very welcome.
>
>I am now no longer on the same email address, and would like to change =
>my subscription address from jon@jonrouse.freeserve.co.uk to =
>jonrouse@iname.com . Please use this latter address for correspondence.
>
>I look forward to any help that someone may be able to provide.
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Jon
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jonathan Rouse
>Email: jonrouse@iname.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat May 27 07:26:39 2000
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Fwd: Re: Grates
Message-ID: <200005271126.HAA05724@adan.kingston.net>

Stovers,
Peter Verhaart had intended that the following response be sent to
the list.
Alex

Alex,

At 23:13 25/05/00 +0000, you wrote:
>It is interesting that batch fed cordwood burners have evolved to
>limit air flow up through the fuel. It would be useful to
>discuss the reasons, and see if any of them are relevant for simple
>continuously fed cooking stoves. The cooking stove experts, Prasad,
>Dean and Grant Ballard-Tremeer, to name a few, have been promoting
>under fire air, or "grates", in route to more complete combustion.
>
Speaking for Prasad, the argument for a grate is that it provides a more
intense fire, air can enter from the bottom as well as from the top, more
kW per sq. m.

>I think this is an issue worth looking at more closely. When is a
>stove, a gasifier? and can the benefits be as dramatic as the
>following example?
>
What is your definition of a gasifier? Something that produces unburnt
volatiles or something that converts the volatiles to simple compounds like
CO; H2, to mention only the combustible parts of the gas mixture?

>Some time ago I experimented with Approvecho's Rocket stove. I used
>commercial wooden tongue depressors as a "standardized" fuel.
>
>At first, I slid them into the stove so they extend into the
>stove like the fingers on your hand, forming a grate of burning
>sticks. Air flows up through and in over top of the sticks.

I don't understand. To my knowledge, the Rocket stove is essentially a tall
vertical pipe (chimney), with a grate near the bottom. How can you 'slide'
your bits of fuel into it other than dropping them in from the top?

>The stove
>was in a vent hood and I continuously monitored CO and CO2, while
>also qualitatively observed the flames extending out of the top of
>the stove. There was no pot. I found that many small flame fingers
>with smoky tips was the typical result.
>
>Next, I tried folding up the sticks and tossing them into a pile on
>top of the ashes and coals in the stove. It was not a sustainable
>process as the pile just kept getting bigger. However the combustion
>dynamic was quiet different. The mound was noticeably air starved with
>a flame boundary forming around and above it. The flame was more
>billowy with no smoky tips, and CO dropped while CO2 increased in
>comparison to the previous grate burning trial.
>

What else did you measure besides CO and CO2?

I found the Rocket stove clean burning so long as it was not overfed.

Best regards,

Piet
Peter Verhaart
Phone/Fax: +61 (0)7 4933 1761
Email: p.verhaart@cqu.edu.au

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat May 27 14:46:47 2000
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Grates, Lori
Message-ID: <200005271846.OAA15757@adan.kingston.net>

Lori,
I always struggle to describe things so that the reader will follow
along with my thinking. So forgive me if I misinterpret any of your
descriptions.

> Now, I think what may be happening with my woodstove is: When I open the
> door early in the process, the incoming air from the door is much colder
> than the air in the stove. It is coming in above the fire and at a downward
> slant anyway, the full width of the fire, and being colder would drop like
> a stone ... effectively being a "blanket" forcing down the lighter gases to
> be consumed, which then become additional fuel. Later on, the incoming air
> would be much warmer, since the purpose of the stove is to transfer the
> heat of the fire to the surrounding air, and particularly with the door
> slanted in to the heat, so would be less of a downward force on the gases.
> Any validity to this thinking?

Yes. Colder air is more dense, carrying a larger amount of
oxygen with it into the fuel. The force driving the flow should be
relative to the temperature difference between the incoming air and
the outgoing flue gasses, less any resistance to flow in the chimney.

> If I transfer the foregoing thinking to the small stoves, some things start
> to make sense to me. Until now, I couldn't understand the working of the
> secondary air, thinking it would enter above the fire and simply rise. I
> have studied Mr. Reed's sketches and pictures of his Turbo Stove until my
> eyes crossed, and been unable to grasp how the upper half of the stove
> works. I understand that the stoves function better if insulated, and since
> the purpose is cooking, it made sense to limit the heat lost out the sides.
> Now, though, I'm thinking that at the same time the insulation is
> increasing the heat inside the combustion chamber, it is also isolating the
> outside air from the heat, increasing the difference in temperature
> significantly. So, if some of that much cooler air were introduced to the
> combustion chamber above the fire ... it would drop, forcing down the gases
> to be burned, even without the increased efficiency of a fan-assist. Yes?

The secondary air is pre heated up to around 700F (370C) in the space
around the fuel can before being jetted into the space above the fuel
in the top of the fuel can. If there is sufficient space between the
fuel and these jets, a portion of the flow will tumble down in a
jumble of flame, often blue. Depending on the firing rate more or
less flame, (as little as none) is simultaneously exiting the hole on
top.
>
> This brings up a question that I KNOW sounds really dumb ... but I cannot
> answer it with logic. If the above is more or less correct .... how would
> the heat get to the top to do the cooking, if incoming cold air is pushing
> everything down?

See above, actually you should see the stove working.

>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lori

I hope some of that made sense,

Alex
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa, Ontario, Canada
K0H2H0 613-386-1927
Fax 613-386-1211

From english at adan.kingston.net Sat May 27 14:46:50 2000
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Grates, Peter Verhaart
Message-ID: <200005271846.OAA15764@adan.kingston.net>

Piet,

> What is your definition of a gasifier? Something that produces unburnt
> volatiles or something that converts the volatiles to simple compounds like
> CO; H2, to mention only the combustible parts of the gas mixture?

I don't have a definition. I'm just fishing for ideas that might
explain my observations. One of my speculations is that the volatiles
from the air starved pile of wood are somehow changed into compounds
that are easier to burn. I don't know if this is possible, or if
anyone can know for sure that it is not. But if it is not the case,
then the only other speculation that I can offer is that the better
results are due to fluid dynamics. What I may have seen is something
similar to a laminar flame on a kerosene lamp. The rich combustible
products are totally inside of a single flame,especially at the base,
which is less diluted by previously combusted products and isolated
from cold edges where it can quench into "smoke". From there it burns
as diffusion flame with less total surface area. Perhaps hotter?
Contrast that with sticks of wood partly in the flame and partly
out. Edge effects associated with numerous smaller flames and the
positioning of the fuel allow for regions of quenching. Excess air
will have a greater cooling or quenching effect with many smaller
flames. This is why I think that insulation in the stove is
of secondary importance in relation to emissions. Grant had lower
emission with open fires, no insulation. Wrapping the Turbo stove and
the exiting flame with ceramic fibre insulation had an insignificant
effect on emission. Increasing excess air increased particulate
emissions by a factor of ten and CO by a factor of 100. The better
the mixing the worse the result. This is where blue flames are
misleading. In this context I have found lean blue flames to have
higher CO and particulates emissions.

In an effort to reduce toxic emissions, especially particulates and
hydrocarbons, highly controllable advanced combustors, from large
waste incinerators, to industrial chip burners, to household pellet
stoves, to tiny cooking stoves such as the Turbo, have all gone with
limiting air/oxygen mixing with the solid fuel. This has benefits
for reducing fly ash, but also for improving combustible gas quality
in the gas and aerosol phase. They aren't perfect gasifiers as there
is a lot of long chain hydrocarbons mixed with the CO and H2. It
seem that EPA approved cord wood burners and some Masonry Heaters,
although less controllable, have found ways to gain a similar effect.
All these different combustors don't have the same emissions rates,
but they are all better than the comparable "grate" fired versions of
the same type.

> I don't understand. To my knowledge, the Rocket stove is essentially a tall
> vertical pipe (chimney), with a grate near the bottom. How can you 'slide'
> your bits of fuel into it other than dropping them in from the top?

The Rocket Stove that Dean sent me, and most of the ones I saw at
Aprovecho, have a 90 degree elbow section at the bottom where the
fuel is inserted horizontally. They also have some flat sheet metal
bisecting the round opening, forming a horizontal ledge. The wood
rest on this and sticks out, with unsupported ends into the
bottom of the vertical section, thus forming a grate of burning
sticks. Other types have a U section, and behave somewhat as self
feeding downdrafters. I saw none that were top loaded.

> What else did you measure besides CO and CO2?

Nothing else during this test. During other test I have measured
particulate emissions as well, but not for the short lived condition
which I have described. Most of my testing lacks Eindoven style rigor
and was done only to satisfy my curiosity. These small stoves and
open fires, where the flame can be watched as well as measured offer
a distinct advantage for interpretation. Especially for those of us
who are prone to speculation.

> I found the Rocket stove clean burning so long as it was not overfed.

In terms of emission, at low to medium fire rates, I found it to be
no different than a similar open fire. At higher firing rates it was
worse, for obvious reasons of maximum flow rates. Interestingly, I
found that the best or lowest CO/C02 ratio occurred at a mid to high
firing rates when there was more visible smoky at the flames tips
than at slightly lower rates. I discussed this briefly with Grant at
the time, and had a look at his thesis test data for single pot
stoves, but could not find any similar effect.

That's enough babble for now, Alex

> Best regards,
>
> Piet
> Peter Verhaart
> Phone/Fax: +61 (0)7 4933 1761
> Email: p.verhaart@cqu.edu.au
>
>
Alex English
RR 2 Odessa, Ontario, Canada
K0H2H0 613-386-1927
Fax 613-386-1211

From rboetcke at bitcorp.net Sat May 27 17:55:44 2000
From: rboetcke at bitcorp.net (Richard Boetcker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Possible solution to a problem
Message-ID: <393043C5.5C43063C@bitcorp.net>

Stovers:

For those of you that have not read any of the few postings that I have
rendered. Here goes! Back in 1985 I started working on a combination
cooking stove that will allow the use of most all cooking utensils. It
is fired by charcoal. I have made some changes to the original stove and
it is patent pending at this time. I have a manufacturer interested and
the stove will be on the market in the spring of 2001. Visit my web
site at "http://www.chrbo.com" One thing that comes to mind as I write
this. Many of you are looking for particular types of insulation
materials and various designs to allow people in poorer countries to
make fires and cook meals. The stove must be practical, it must work
properly and it must be very inexpensive. I will tell you of such a
stove. It is very practical, it works and it is free except for two
small pieces of steel to serve as a cooking surface. I would find it
hard to believe that ancient cultures have not used this design, but I
am certainly no expert on anything in particular much less
anthropology. To the point. I presently live in Utah and remember
hearing about a Mormon stove. After doing a little research, I find
that a Mormon stove is simply two holes in the ground, connected with a
channel between them. You put the fuel in hole #1, cover it with a
grate made of two pieces of metal and you light the fire. Hole #2
supplies the required air to the fire. Temperature is controlled by
starving air by closing off hole #2. Simple enough! I have not been
interested in researching the workings of this kind of stove because my
stove is designed for other than third world countries and the concern
for me is no trace, versatile cooking. If anyone wants to try building
a Mormon stove, I think that everyone would be interested in the
results. Good luck

Richard C. Boetcker

From heat-win at cwcom.net Mon May 29 03:22:55 2000
From: heat-win at cwcom.net (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Oil's decline
Message-ID: <39321E94.E75703C7@cwcom.net>

Dear Tom and Gasification and Bioenergy readers,

Under the heading GAS-L: Re: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry
Heaters, Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:52:55 EDT Tom Reed published my
"Biomass Based Noah's Ark" warning quoting from William E. Rees, an
ecological economist and professor at the University of British
Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning who wrote that "The
world is running out of oil." and went on to explain that statement in
detail.

The next message under the heading Re: GAS-L: Re: San Francisco Bay
Area is Banning Masonry Heaters from: LINVENT@aol.com dated Mon, 29 May
2000 01:11:13 EDT began with:

"Dear Tom Reed and others,
Unfortunately for all of the doomsayers about the end of the fossil
fuel
era, there are more discoveries made each day and as one Secretary of
State
said "The world is floating on a pool of oil"."

Every logically presented analysis of the oil situation I have read over
the past 20 years tells me that our "pool of oil" is already half empty
and that the accellerating extraction rate is already more than four
times as fast as the declining new discovery rate.

People who won't face those simple facts and/or, like the car and
aircraft manufacturers and their advertising agents, politicians,
bankers, etc., are doing well out of maintaining the illusion that we
can go on taking oil from the pool for ever, will soon have no choice
but to join those of us who know and accept what is happening and help
us to prepare for and counter the coming global crisis.

The sooner that happens the better!

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

From mheat at mha-net.org Mon May 29 07:16:31 2000
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Fwd: RE: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry Heaters
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000529041430.00b6bdc0@127.0.0.1>

The following message was received from John Crouch, who is the government
relations specialist for the Hearth Products Association ......... Norbert Senf

>From: "John Crouch" <crouchpa@ix.netcom.com>
>To: "Norbert Senf" <mheat@mha-net.org>,
> "Matthew D. Summers" <mdsummers@ucdavis.edu>
>Subject: RE: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry Heaters
>Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 21:17:36 -0700
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>Importance: Normal
>
>Matt, let me add my 2 cents to Norbert's comments. The issue of
>masonry heaters is not technical, it is political. The EPA developed
>their test protocol under a court order, and were interested in doing
>the minimum necessary to satisfy the court, not in addressing ALL the
>issues in all type of woodburning.
>
>Also, in the Bay area there is an added twist, an added political
>twist in fact. The Bay Area Air Quality District's model ordnance
>only includes EPA stoves in order that they can deny they are
>'banning' woodburning, but that is their intention. Therefore, any
>arguments offered to them, or the cities they advise, must overcome
>this prejudice. Their commitment is to gas for new homes and
>additions.
>John Crouch
>Director of Government Relations
>Hearth Products Association
>7840 Madison Ave, suite 185
>Fair Oaks, California 95628
>916.536.2390 voice
>888.206.7556 Pager (U.S. only)
>916.536.2392 telefax
>crouch@hearthassocation.org
>www.hearthassociation.org

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Mon May 29 10:17:41 2000
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:34 2004
Subject: Oil's decline
In-Reply-To: <39321E94.E75703C7@cwcom.net>
Message-ID: <39327BF5.863F2416@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Mr. Stubbing

The reality is that the world will NEVER run out of oil. What we will
run out of is "cheap oil." From an economic standpoint, the problem will
cure itself..... as oil energy gets more expensive, then the consumer
will switch to other alternatives which are less costly. A major problem
arises, of course, if there is irreversible environmental damage done
before the "economics of substitution" kick in.

There is a major problem with the world's accounting systems: costs show
up in one sector of the economy and benefits show up in another. As a
consequence, when the consumer makes an "energy buying decision", he is
usually only considering his immediate first cost, and is not
considering the total cost of his decision to the biosphere. If the
accounting system was refined so that the Consumer paid "full cost" for
his energy benefits, then the world would indeed be a different place.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

T J Stubbing wrote:
>
> Dear Tom and Gasification and Bioenergy readers,
>
> Under the heading GAS-L: Re: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry
> Heaters, Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:52:55 EDT Tom Reed published my
> "Biomass Based Noah's Ark" warning quoting from William E. Rees, an
> ecological economist and professor at the University of British
> Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning who wrote that "The
> world is running out of oil." and went on to explain that statement in
> detail.
>
> The next message under the heading Re: GAS-L: Re: San Francisco Bay
> Area is Banning Masonry Heaters from: LINVENT@aol.com dated Mon, 29 May
> 2000 01:11:13 EDT began with:
>
> "Dear Tom Reed and others,
> Unfortunately for all of the doomsayers about the end of the fossil
> fuel
> era, there are more discoveries made each day and as one Secretary of
> State
> said "The world is floating on a pool of oil"."
>
> Every logically presented analysis of the oil situation I have read over
> the past 20 years tells me that our "pool of oil" is already half empty
> and that the accellerating extraction rate is already more than four
> times as fast as the declining new discovery rate.
>
> People who won't face those simple facts and/or, like the car and
> aircraft manufacturers and their advertising agents, politicians,
> bankers, etc., are doing well out of maintaining the illusion that we
> can go on taking oil from the pool for ever, will soon have no choice
> but to join those of us who know and accept what is happening and help
> us to prepare for and counter the coming global crisis.
>
> The sooner that happens the better!
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas J Stubbing
>
> The Stoves List is Sponsored by
> Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
> Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
The Stoves List is Sponsored by
Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From larcon at sni.net Tue May 30 01:06:02 2000
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:35 2004
Subject: Forwarding Tom Duke on Sun Wall Competition
Message-ID: <v01540b00b558a2841385@[204.131.233.22]>

Stovers: Tom's been one of our longest term members - with a slight e-mail
address change for this submission.

Tom - I will write separately about what to do with your e-mail address. I
like your thought below.

Ron (The rest all from Tom Duke)

Dear Persons,

The Department of Energy is offering a competition for designing a sun
wall for a building in Washington D. C. From their description of the
contest it appears that they are not thinking of a beautiful wall
consisting of terraced biomass. Their goal is to show the energy future.
My proposal is this: Can we show that a terraced wall of growing biomass
can provide adequate amounts of energy for the building? What if we made
an enclosed biome with the carbon dioxide and water being returned to
the biome? Could we demonstrate a ecologically sound system? What if
various ways of extracting the energy from the biomass were also
demonstrated? Perhaps including stoves, fuel cells, conversion to liquid
fuel, and other systems. What if we made it a national showcase of a
functioning energy supplying ecological system that will continue and
expand? A place where we could show our latest understanding of nature
and energy and man. What if it were a place that would grow and develop
as our understanding develops? What if it were a place where where
people can come and learn about our relationship to nature and energy?

The sun wall site is: http://www.doe-sunwall.org/

Please let me know what you think.

Tom Duke
Burlington Iowa

From heat-win at cwcom.net Tue May 30 02:26:57 2000
From: heat-win at cwcom.net (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:35 2004
Subject: Oil's decline
In-Reply-To: <39321E94.E75703C7@cwcom.net>
Message-ID: <393362EE.303D5569@cwcom.net>

Dear Kevin,

You rightly wrote:

> Dear Mr. Stubbing
>
> The reality is that the world will NEVER run out of oil. What we will
> run out of is "cheap oil." From an economic standpoint, the problem will
> cure itself..... as oil energy gets more expensive, then the consumer
> will switch to other alternatives which are less costly. A major problem
> arises, of course, if there is irreversible environmental damage done
> before the "economics of substitution" kick in.
>
> There is a major problem with the world's accounting systems: costs show
> up in one sector of the economy and benefits show up in another. As a
> consequence, when the consumer makes an "energy buying decision", he is
> usually only considering his immediate first cost, and is not
> considering the total cost of his decision to the biosphere. If the
> accounting system was refined so that the Consumer paid "full cost" for
> his energy benefits, then the world would indeed be a different place.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm

I agree with all of the above, but the cost is not just financial however the
accounting is done.

There is also the question of how much oil is needed to extract each barrel,
refine it and deliver it to the consumer.

If I recall what I have learnt on this point correctly, that ratio used to be
1 to 50 and is now around 1 to 5. When it gets to 1 to 1 that will
effectively be the end of the story however much remains below ground.

We might then use an excess of renewable energy to extract some more for its
chemicals but not for use as a fuel.

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

>
>
> T J Stubbing wrote:
> >
> > Dear Tom and Gasification and Bioenergy readers,
> >
> > Under the heading GAS-L: Re: San Francisco Bay Area is Banning Masonry
> > Heaters, Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:52:55 EDT Tom Reed published my
> > "Biomass Based Noah's Ark" warning quoting from William E. Rees, an
> > ecological economist and professor at the University of British
> > Columbia's School of Community and Regional Planning who wrote that "The
> > world is running out of oil." and went on to explain that statement in
> > detail.
> >
> > The next message under the heading Re: GAS-L: Re: San Francisco Bay
> > Area is Banning Masonry Heaters from: LINVENT@aol.com dated Mon, 29 May
> > 2000 01:11:13 EDT began with:
> >
> > "Dear Tom Reed and others,
> > Unfortunately for all of the doomsayers about the end of the fossil
> > fuel
> > era, there are more discoveries made each day and as one Secretary of
> > State
> > said "The world is floating on a pool of oil"."
> >
> > Every logically presented analysis of the oil situation I have read over
> > the past 20 years tells me that our "pool of oil" is already half empty
> > and that the accellerating extraction rate is already more than four
> > times as fast as the declining new discovery rate.
> >
> > People who won't face those simple facts and/or, like the car and
> > aircraft manufacturers and their advertising agents, politicians,
> > bankers, etc., are doing well out of maintaining the illusion that we
> > can go on taking oil from the pool for ever, will soon have no choice
> > but to join those of us who know and accept what is happening and help
> > us to prepare for and counter the coming global crisis.
> >
> > The sooner that happens the better!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Thomas J Stubbing
> >
> > The Stoves List is Sponsored by
> > Pyromid Inc. http://www.pyromid.net
> > Stoves Webpage, Charcoal, Activated Carbon
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> > Other Sponsors, Archive and Information
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/stoves-list-archive/
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> > http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From mheat at mha-net.org Tue May 30 06:10:26 2000
From: mheat at mha-net.org (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:35 2004
Subject: Oil's decline
In-Reply-To: <39321E94.E75703C7@cwcom.net>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000530031016.00a44f00@127.0.0.1>

At 07:42 AM 2000-05-30 +0100, T J Stubbing wrote:
>(snip)
>There is also the question of how much oil is needed to extract each barrel,
>refine it and deliver it to the consumer.
>(snip)

I have a 1996 study (in German) prepared for the Austrian Stove Guild
by Dr. Herman Hofbauer, a university professor specializing in biomass. It
does a comparison of the different fuels, including upstream costs. Here is
some of the data: (note that if you include the upstream CH4 from natural
gas, its greenhouse gas impact is significantly higher than oil, despite
industry propaganda to the contrary)

Norbert

----message separator--------------

All figures in (kg/TJ)

Natural gas:

SO2 0.33
CO2 4392.1
CH4 735
VOC 25.5
Particulates (measured differently in Austria from EPA): 0.2
(Upstream cost): Extraction loss 3.18%
(Upstream cost): Extraction use 7.9%

Oil:

SO2 19.5
CO2 7588.7
CH4 7
VOC 95.0
Particulates 2.4
Extraction loss 0.77%
Extaction use 12.0%

Fuel Wood:

SO2 0.8
CO2 645.4
CH4 2
VOC 33.1
Particulates 40.7
Extraction loss 0.00%
Extraction use 0.9%

From larcon at sni.net Tue May 30 15:04:25 2000
From: larcon at sni.net (Ronal W. Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:35 2004
Subject: Forwarding Verhaart on "grates"
Message-ID: <v01540b07b559b52eda30@[204.131.233.19]>

Stovers - the following was a cc of a message that Piet Verhaart sent to
Alex English.

>At 14:45 27/05/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Piet,
>>
>>
>>> What is your definition of a gasifier? Something that produces unburnt
>>> volatiles or something that converts the volatiles to simple compounds like
>>> CO; H2, to mention only the combustible parts of the gas mixture?
>>
>>I don't have a definition. I'm just fishing for ideas that might
>>explain my observations. One of my speculations is that the volatiles
>>from the air starved pile of wood are somehow changed into compounds
>>that are easier to burn.
>
>It is not a good prognosis, one would rather expect easier burning
>compounds from high temperature exposure.
>
>
>>I don't know if this is possible, or if
>>anyone can know for sure that it is not. But if it is not the case,
>>then the only other speculation that I can offer is that the better
>>results are due to fluid dynamics. What I may have seen is something
>>similar to a laminar flame on a kerosene lamp. The rich combustible
>>products are totally inside of a single flame,especially at the base,
>>which is less diluted by previously combusted products and isolated
>>from cold edges where it can quench into "smoke". From there it burns
>>as diffusion flame with less total surface area. Perhaps hotter?
>
>Diffusion flames can burn clean so long as their surface/volume ratio is
>sufficiently high, depending on the composition of the gas. The volume of a
>diffusion flame is larger that that of a premixed flame of the same rate of
>heat production.
>
>
>>Contrast that with sticks of wood partly in the flame and partly
>>out. Edge effects associated with numerous smaller flames and the
>>positioning of the fuel allow for regions of quenching. Excess air
>>will have a greater cooling or quenching effect with many smaller
>>flames. This is why I think that insulation in the stove is
>>of secondary importance in relation to emissions.
>
>In many cases insulation also influences the access of air to the fire.
>
>>Grant had lower
>>emission with open fires, no insulation. Wrapping the Turbo stove and
>>the exiting flame with ceramic fibre insulation had an insignificant
>>effect on emission. Increasing excess air increased particulate
>>emissions by a factor of ten and CO by a factor of 100. The better
>>the mixing the worse the result.
>
>How sure are you that mixing resulted from increasing excess air, it might
>just have cooled critical reactions with little actual mixing.
>
>>This is where blue flames are
>>misleading. In this context I have found lean blue flames to have
>>higher CO and particulates emissions.
>>
>
>You can make air starved blue flames (I did it with propane, but I am sure
>you can do it with other gases), compared to flames with the correct mixing
>ratio, they are greener.
>
>>
>>In an effort to reduce toxic emissions, especially particulates and
>>hydrocarbons, highly controllable advanced combustors, from large
>>waste incinerators, to industrial chip burners, to household pellet
>>stoves, to tiny cooking stoves such as the Turbo, have all gone with
>>limiting air/oxygen mixing with the solid fuel. This has benefits
>>for reducing fly ash, but also for improving combustible gas quality
>>in the gas and aerosol phase. They aren't perfect gasifiers as there
>>is a lot of long chain hydrocarbons mixed with the CO and H2. It
>>seem that EPA approved cord wood burners and some Masonry Heaters,
>>although less controllable, have found ways to gain a similar effect.
>>All these different combustors don't have the same emissions rates,
>>but they are all better than the comparable "grate" fired versions of
>>the same type.
>>
>>> I don't understand. To my knowledge, the Rocket stove is essentially a tall
>>> vertical pipe (chimney), with a grate near the bottom. How can you 'slide'
>>> your bits of fuel into it other than dropping them in from the top?
>>
>>The Rocket Stove that Dean sent me, and most of the ones I saw at
>>Aprovecho, have a 90 degree elbow section at the bottom where the
>
>>fuel is inserted horizontally. They also have some flat sheet metal
>>bisecting the round opening, forming a horizontal ledge. The wood
>>rest on this and sticks out, with unsupported ends into the
>>bottom of the vertical section, thus forming a grate of burning
>>sticks. Other types have a U section, and behave somewhat as self
>>feeding downdrafters. I saw none that were top loaded.
>>
>They must be advanced types, I only saw the prototype in 1983 and expected
>it to have good future prospects. In fact we have done some tests on it in
>Eindhoven. There should be reports on it.
>
>
>>> What else did you measure besides CO and CO2?
>>
>>Nothing else during this test. During other test I have measured
>>particulate emissions as well, but not for the short lived condition
>>which I have described. Most of my testing lacks Eindoven style rigor
>>and was done only to satisfy my curiosity. These small stoves and
>>open fires, where the flame can be watched as well as measured offer
>>a distinct advantage for interpretation. Especially for those of us
>>who are prone to speculation.
>>
>>> I found the Rocket stove clean burning so long as it was not overfed.
>>
>> In terms of emission, at low to medium fire rates, I found it to be
>>no different than a similar open fire. At higher firing rates it was
>>worse, for obvious reasons of maximum flow rates. Interestingly, I
>>found that the best or lowest CO/C02 ratio occurred at a mid to high
>>firing rates when there was more visible smoky at the flames tips
>>than at slightly lower rates. I discussed this briefly with Grant at
>>the time, and had a look at his thesis test data for single pot
>>stoves, but could not find any similar effect.
>
>One thing that can (according to some authorities but don't ask me who)
>happen in a diffusion flame is temperature rise in the unburnt gases with
>thermal decomposition (cracking) producing a tail of soot.
>
>With the downdraft stove we found a consistent increase in CO/CO2 ratio
>when all wood had turned into charcoal.
>
>Bye the way, A long time ago I attached a copy of "Making do with the open
>fire". Do you know where it was archived (if it was).
>
>I enjoyed your babble.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Piet
>Peter Verhaart
>Phone/Fax: +61 (0)7 4933 1761
>Email: p.verhaart@cqu.edu.au
>

Ronal W. Larson, PhD
21547 Mountsfield Dr.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
303/526-9629; FAX same with warning
larcon@sni.net

From lorih at isn.net Wed May 31 03:14:32 2000
From: lorih at isn.net (Lori)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:35 2004
Subject: Stove use (was Grates)
In-Reply-To: <200005271846.OAA15757@adan.kingston.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.1.20000531034821.00a88410@mailer.isn.net>

Hi, Alex

Thank you for your reply. It did make sense, and I'm now comfortable enough
with my understanding to put a stove together and give it a go.

It also gave me an idea. Would there be any reason not to have a water coil
in that space around the fuel can? If the exterior were insulated, would
the water cool the combustion chamber too much?

Also, would there be any reason for not trying to burn fryer oil (filtered,
but not converted to biodiesel) in one of the small stoves? As in, any
safety issues from the amount of heat that would or wouldn't be generated?

Thanks to all for any opinions!

Lori
P.E.I., Canada

At 03:45 PM 2000-05-27, *.English wrote:

>Lori,
>
>Yes. Colder air is more dense, carrying a larger amount of
>oxygen with it into the fuel. The force driving the flow should be
>relative to the temperature difference between the incoming air and
>the outgoing flue gasses, less any resistance to flow in the chimney.
>
>The secondary air is pre heated up to around 700F (370C) in the space
>around the fuel can before being jetted into the space above the fuel
>in the top of the fuel can. If there is sufficient space between the
>fuel and these jets, a portion of the flow will tumble down in a
>jumble of flame, often blue. Depending on the firing rate more or
>less flame, (as little as none) is simultaneously exiting the hole on
>top.
>
>I hope some of that made sense,
>
>Alex

From heat-win at cwcom.net Wed May 31 06:39:10 2000
From: heat-win at cwcom.net (T J Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:36:35 2004
Subject: Oil's decline
In-Reply-To: <20000530.110431.-852167.0.panalytics@juno.com>
Message-ID: <3934EF97.47FF1E84@cwcom.net>

Dear Nikhil,

>From panalytics@juno.com you wrote:

(SNIP)

> > Every logically presented analysis of the oil situation I have read
> over
> > the past 20 years tells me that our "pool of oil" is already half empty
> > and that the accellerating extraction rate is already more than four
> > times as fast as the declining new discovery rate.
>
> I can just as well say every logically presented analysis of the oil
> situation I have read over the past 20 years that told me that our "pool
> of oil" is already half empty has amounted to well, half-full crock.
> What's the point here - that Mr. Stubbins' pot has been half empty for 20
> years even as extraction rates accelerated?

I didn't say it has been half empty for 20 years, only that it is half empty
now. I'm sorry if my meaning was not clear.

(SNIP)

> I don't know what "facts" you have been sitting on. And nobody in his
> right mind says we can go on taking oil from the pool forever. (Depends
> on how big the pool is, for oil, gas, coal, and all other fossil fuels.)
> You may choose to maintain the illusion that everybody else would join
> you; those of us who really know and accept what is happening would be
> better off staying away from the resource terrorizers, and help the rest
> of us prepare for and counter the coming global crisis.
>
> > The sooner that happens the better!
>
> I don't know what all you are doing to prepare for the coming global
> crisis - I don't think it would have anything to do in the next 10-20
> years with the amount of fossil fuels that can be extracted and used -
> but even if it is something worth doing some day, it is not at all
> obvious that it's best done sooner.

It has taken over 100 years for the vast petroleum industry to be developed and
we will need at least your "10-20 years" to develop its renewable energy
replacement. A start has been made with wind, solar and tidal energy
development, and with bioenergy development based on sustainable forestry. I am
"doing" my little bit towards the latter (and improving industrial energy
efficiency generally), see <http://www.dryers-airless.mcmail.com>, and also
<http://www.techtp.com> and its numerous links outlining some international
biofuel collaboration.

Lobbying for acceptance and change (achieving which is also a slow process!) is
for me a minor but also essential activity, and in case anyone thinks I'm in it
for the money, at 68 I am not. Its my seven grandchildren's energy future which
concerns me.

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

P.S. Without further comment I will now paste below a just received and highly
relevant message:

Subject: [energyresources] Prediction
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:39:42 -0400
From: "Kermit Schlansker" <kssustain@provide.net>
Reply-To: energyresources@egroups.com
To: "energyresources" <energyresources@egroups.com>

Prediction

In trying to make life possible for our progeny, I am trying to
mathematically reinforce the following arguments:

1 That we will run out of oil and natural gas within 50 years.
2 That coal will require too much oil to be mined in great quantity.
3 That finding unexpected fossil fuels will only increase the very serious threat
of Global warming.
4 That there is not enough nuclear fuel to contribute much.
5 That when the fossil fuels are gone there will be joblessness, starvation, and
anarchy. This generation is stealing from other generations.
6 That running out of fertilizer will contribute to the starvation.
7 That all energy solutions will be limited by shortages of strategic metals.
8 That we can not meet present USA consumption of 95 quads ( a quad is 1
quadrillion btus) of energy with combinations of Solar, Wind, and Biomass energy.
My estimate is possibly 30 to 40 quads from these sources.
9 That most of the other nations will be in worse shape than we. However our bad
government and parasitic population is a great handicap. Increasing competition
from other nations will limit our supplies of raw materials.
10 That biomass is the most useful alternate source because it is storable.
However there is not enough land in the USA to produce more than 15 to 20 quads.
Urban Sprawl, road building, and immigration are reducing our farmland to
population ratio.
11 That Solar energy will be extremely expensive. That solar may furnish summer
needs but may not do much in Winter. That Solar mirror boilers are cheaper than
solar cells.
12 That Wind will be cheaper than solar but the amount is limited by suitable
sites, duty cycle, transmission costs, cost, and raw materials.
13 That we must mobilize immediately to meet this threat because it will take
years of investment and our total work force to save our population.
14 That most of our needs will have to be met by using less. That we must give up
airplanes, cars, and single family houses. Most of the energy will have to be
saved for agriculture and essential industries. We will have to live in
apartments in totally designed villages, travel with bicycles, and haul grain on
trains.

Biomass---- USA area =2.37 billion acres. assuming 1 billion acres useable,
producing 4000lbs/acre/yr at 6000 btus/ lb. Per acre energy production would be
24 million btus. Total energy produced from biomass would be 24 quads. These
numbers can be massaged up or down. However biomass is limited by fertilizer,
water, soil quality, labor, and governmental wisdom. We need a mass tree planting
program right now. It seems unlikely that we could produce more than 20 quads of
biomass. However biomass is the most useful alternate energy because it is
storeable and because the ashes may be crucial for fertilizer, and legumes in bio
digesters may be able to produce
food, energy, and nitrogen fertilizer.

Solar-----If solar cells cost $4000/peak kw, the duty cycle is 20%, and 1
kwhr=10,000 btus then the capital investment to produce 1 quad is
4000*10^15/(.2*365*24*10,000)=$228 billion. For 20 quads the cost would be $4.6
trillion dollars. However this does not cover cost of installation, mounting,
inverters, and storage. These factors would probably double costs. The cost for
solar heating and for focussed solar mirror boiler systems would be cheaper than
solar cells. However it would be difficult to fund much more than 20 quads.

Wind---Recent data from a Wisconsin project are 13.7 MPH average windspeed, 1.1
million cost, production=1.63 million kwhrs/windmill/yr. If we convert to btus
using 10,000 btus=1kwhr, then 20 quads are 2 trillion kwhrs. To produce 20 quads
would require 1.2 million windmills at a cost of $1.3 trillion. There seems to be
enough suitable wind sites for this much capacity. However, storage and
transmission cost would probably make total cost much higher.

Conservation----The necessary back up is to reduce per capita consumption to a
third of what we are using now. Europe gives us a partial solution. By building
car scarce Sustainable villages which combine manufacturing, agriculture, and
dwelling we can certainly reduce per capita consumption by 2/3. That will
probably be much cheaper than massive wind and solar. I believe that biomass
fuel, because of its fertilizer gathering properties, its constant availability,
its relation to food, and because of its relation to nature is essential.

Cost-----All energy solutions have the common factor of cost. It is my belief
that running out of energy and Global Warming are much graver dangers that war. I
also believe that we must convert our parasitic classes into workers. It will
take a full mobilization similar to what we did in WW2 to save our population. We
will need to double or triple our number of engineers. All heating must be done
by Cogeneration and Comanufacturing. This will save our forests. Spending a
trillion dollars is just a beginning.

Reference----- 1 acre=.4047 hectares, 1 kwhr=3.6*10^6 joules=3412 btus, 1
btu=1055 joules, 1 quad=10^15 btus =1 trillion cuft natural gas=171.5 million
barrels of oil, 1 barrel=5.25 million btus,, 1 kwhr=approximately 10,000 btus
crudely based on power plant efficiency and heat pump COP, It takes very
approximately 10,000 acres wood to fuel a 1 megawatt power plant which will
produce about 8000 megawatt hrs/yr.
USA 272 million pop, 3.7 million sq miles or 2.37 billion acres area, uses 95
quads energy/yr

K Schlansker PE kssustain@provide.net

BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

May 2000 Biomass Cooking Stoves Archive