July 2003 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 kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jul 1 00:34:48 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:27 2004
Subject: chimney
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUL.2003.013448.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tami
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tami Bond" <yark@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] chimney

> Dear Stovers, and especially Dr. Karve,
>
> Thanks for your input. I hope to follow this thread and distill some pros
> and cons of chimneys. Please correct me if I miss the main points.
>
Thanks for your follow-up questions, which are getting to the heart of the
problem.....

> According to Dr. Karve, the main problem with the chimneys was blockage,
> and that problem was perpetuated because the chimneys couldn't be
> conveniently cleaned. This led to rejection of the stoves with chimneys.

Certainly, this will be a problem, but the point is that when burning
"highly disadvantaged fuels" such as wet leaves and wet dung, at least they
can be burned comfortably inside until such time as the chimney plugs. It is
dreadfully unfair and unscientific to compare the performance of such poor
fuels with a stack, and such good fuels as dry charcoal with no stack.
>
> Kevin Chisholm asked:
> > "Why was the stove system so poorly designed that unburned combustibles
are
> > allowed to escape"
> > "Why was the smoke and tar problem not discovered at the Lab Stage?"
>
> Recall that this discussion was triggered by Dean Still's message that a
> chimney was a simple solution to the indoor air problem.

Actually, I believe I raised the point about the benefits of a stack in the
following reply to a posting by Paul:
Dear Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 3:43 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Grand Challenges (and stoves)

> Stovers,
...del...>
> Am I totally out of touch? I thought we needed a LOT of work about stoves
> in relation to less smoke inside of the homes of impoverished people.
>
A stovepipe discharging outside teh living space will solve the problem,
wouldn't you say?

Kevin

Dean then proceeded to test the suggestion, and post excellent results.

This implied that
> the combustion was still poor, but one could solve some of the health
> problems by adding a chimney and removing the exhaust from the living
> space. Dr. Karve's experience indicates that WHEN combustion is poor, the
> chimney is NOT a good solution because it will clog up. And this leads to
> my first simplistic entry in the Chimney FAQ:
>
> Q. Why should we worry about improving combustion for health reasons?
> Can't we just put a chimney on the stove and get the exhaust out of the
> house?
> A. No, because the chimney is likely to clog when combustion is poor.

OK.... given that the User has to work with a seriously disadvantaged fuel,
the chimney will be a definite help to the User, as long as the chimney is
not plugged. The Designers should have recognized that the chimney would
plug when "disadvantaged fuels" were burned, and should have designed the
chimney system to be readily cleanable by the User. This is where an
awareness of the Gender Issues is very important.

>
> --> *** COMMENTS? COMPLAINTS? *** <---
> - Can the chimney be a cure-all under other circumstances or with
> different designs?

That is a broad question, but certainly, the IAQ issue can be cured with a
chimney, and the need for periodic cleaning can be addressed by designing
the chimney in a way that it can be taken down for easy cleaning.

> - Anyone have experience with chimney corrosion or other failures, or is
> clogging the main problem?

Corrosion is likely, in that products of wood distillation are acidic.
Stainless steel is very much superior to black iron, or galvanized iron, but
more costly. Probably the most cost effective way is to use cheap black
iron, with the understanding that periodic replacement will be necessary.

Plugging the chimney with tars is indeed a problem. There is another problem
here... the possibility of a flu fire. These are awesomely scary, and do
indeed burn down houses. About the only way to deal with a chimney fire is
to clean the chimney before one starts, because once they get going, they
are exceedingly difficult to extinguish.

>I would also like to answer Kevin's statement:

>> If I tried to sell a stove in Canada that vented the products of
combustion
>> into the living space, I would be hit with enormous lawsuits...

>At least here in the U.S., it is perfectly acceptable to vent the products
>of stovetop natural gas combustion into the living space. This may not be
>the most healthy of practices, but it does illustrate a possible tradeoff
>between clean fuels and ventilation.

Natural gas and propane are very different fuels. Basically, when "free
burning", they can be close to "pollution free." However, in reality, there
is a potential for quenching of combustion when the gases contact a cold
pot, and additionally, there is a potential for significant pollution to
result from "cooking products", such as greases on the outside of the pot,
to be burned by the propane or Natural Gas flames, releasing toxic or
undesirable products into the living space.

Kindest regards,

Kevin

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Tue Jul 1 01:38:33 2003
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: chimney
Message-ID: <MON.30.JUN.2003.223833.0700.>

Kevin,
Thats good. I and other fried middling bureaucrats, once wrote a piece on what
we called the "Making of the Concrete Aeroplane", in PNG, with a very similar
theme to your stoves development saga. Think that you could have added the bit
about the bureaucrats, faced with their failed efforts, hiring another
consultant to write the terms of reference for the new research study-- in our
case, it was to design the longer runway. In yours I suppose, it would be to
design the more tamper proof perfect stove to again foist upon those so called
ignorant natives...
Aluta Continua

Richard Stanley

Kevin Chisholm wrote:

> Dear Dr. Karve
>
> The incident you describe sounds like a classic Bureaucratic Mess. The
> Scenario usually goes something as follows:
>
> "An arrogant bunch of Do-Good Bureaucrats in "head office" decide how things
> are to be done. They never go to "The Field" to see the range conditions
> under which the stove must operate, and to determine what the user wants the
> stove to do. They don't look at the range of fuels available in various
> local circumstances. They don't consider gender issues. They find out why
> the present methods of cooking are employed, and what would be necessary in
> a so-called " improved system" for the end users to consider it an improved
> system.
>
> They then order the stove people to come up with a solution. The stove
> people come up with a solution that looks good on paper and works well in
> the Lab.
>
> The Bureaucrats stage a showing of the Stove with Chimney for their
> Minister, using standardized fuels in a lab setting, and have 3 PhD's and 2
> Lab Coated Technologists running the stove until the Minister goes back to
> his office. Then they get a Grant approved for their next Lab Project, and
> turn the stove over to "others" to install in the field. Their Project is
> considered a success because it worked very well in the Lab with 3 PhD's and
> 2 Lab Coated Technologists. Indeed, the stove worked so well in the Lab,
> that it can be sent immediately to the Field.
>
> There is obviously no need for a Field Test Program, user training, or
> follow-up on the stove. This money would be better spent doing more work in
> the Lab. Additionally, nobody in the Ministry want to work in the Field,
> because it is not a very nice place to work.
>
> When the "improved" stove fails, it is not the fault of the people in The
> Ministry, because the stove worked there. Clearly, the fault lies with the
> people who were responsible for distributing the stove system to the end
> users. But then, the Distributors report back to the Ministry that the End
> User is "resistant to change" and does not want to operate the stove the way
> it was used in the Lab. "
>
> Now, isn't that a rather good formula to ensure that projects fail?
> Everybody looks good, except for the End User who is blamed for project
> failure.
>
> Abandonment of the "chimney stove" because it plugs up is proof of a poorly
> executed project. Some questions that should be addressed are:
>
> "Why was the stove system so poorly designed that unburned combustibles are
> allowed to escape"
>
> "Why was the smoke and tar problem not discovered at the Lab Stage?"
>
> "Why were there not provisions made for occasional cleaning of the chimney?"
>
> "Why were Gender Issues not considered?"
>
> "What would have happened to indoor air quality parameters if the "improved
> stove" was fed fuel of a quality that was fed to the charcoal stove?"
>
> Etc., etc, etc.
>
> If I tried to sell a stove in Canada that vented the products of combustion
> into the living space, I would be hit with enormous lawsuits, if I wasn't
> shot by the Families of the victims before the Case came to Trial. I can't
> see why it is any less unacceptable to subject poor people in third world
> Countries to the ravages of an inside vented stove.
>
> Kevin
>
> Subject: [STOVES] chimney
>
> Another reason for the failure of the improved cookstoves programme in India
> was the insistance of the Ministry of Non-conventional Soruces that all
> cookstoves must have a chimney. The recommended chimney was an
> asbestos-cement pipe, having an internal diameter of 4 inches and length of
> 10 feet. The cookstove worked satisfactorily for about 3 months, after which
> the chimney choked. The lack of draft and blockage of an outlet for smoke
> caused more smoke inside the kitchen than the traditional cookstove. The
> housewife was shown, at the time of installation of the cookstove, how to
> clean the chimney, but somebody had to climb on the roof for this chore.
> Being a tropical country, India does not have the professional chimneysweeps
> as in Northern Europe. The menfolk of the household considered this to be
> the responsibility of the housewife, and the housewife is generally
> physically fit to climb up on the roof of the house to clean the chimney. As
> a result the chimney never got cleaned and the housewife just stopped using
> the improved stove.
> I relate this to warn others, who want to introduce a chimney in their
> programmes.
> Yours A.D.Karve
> We are now installing improved cookstoves based on charcoal or on biogas,
> and they do not need a chimney. As a result, there is great demand for our
> cooking devices as also for our fuels.

From pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU Tue Jul 1 07:22:16 2003
From: pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Chimney FAQ
In-Reply-To: <001801c33f85$1ba982c0$cf1e6c0c@default>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUL.2003.212216.1000.PVERHAART@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

Dear Dean

As usual you are right. I am a little disappointed with the high
CO you found in the Rocket stove effluent. It has in common with the
downdraft stove that it appoaches the condition that only the fuel actually
in the burning zone is exposed to heat. This produces a more or less
stationary state with a well defined combustion zone, the remainder of the
fuel is not exposed to heat. This setup gives the engineer hope for here we
have a more or less steady production of volatiles of reasonably constant
composition as well as a steady production of charcoal. All burns up at the
same time.
The downdraft stove more so than the Rocket needs small pieces of wood and
it has to be fed with small amounts of fuel in short intervals. It needs a
chimney, not to get rid of poison gas but for the draft, my barbecue has a
chimney of 1.5 m. One of these days I may experiment with stored fuel and
see how it goes.

I live in Gracemere, close to Rockhampton in Central Queensland, Australia,
just north of the Tropic of Capricorn. It is winter here and we enjoy day
temperatures of 25 C, at night it might fall to 8 C, sometimes even lower.

With kind regards,

Peter Verhaart

At 20:58 29/06/03 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
>
>My lowest test yet of a Rocket stove, downdraft, that was burning cleanly
>without smell was still creating 140ppm CO in a room after half an hour. CO
>is odorless, colorless.This was with a careful operator. I will write back
>on this CHIMNEY FAQ subject after a while saying that IMO someone will come
>up with a clean burning stove eventually, probably you, but that for now
>prudence dictates use of a chimney. Imagine if someone used green wood in
>your downdraft stove inside the kitchen...or if they suddenly pushed in a
>big log...if you used a chimney you and I could continue talking around the
>table while starting lunch instead of going outside in the rain first.
>
>Hope all is well!
>
>Peter, where do you live?
>
>All Best,
>
>Dean

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue Jul 1 22:27:24 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: chimney
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUL.2003.075724.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Tom,
I have again lost connection to STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG. My message to this address was returned to me and I have not received any message today from this address. I request you to please circulate this message to list members and to send to me the other messages.

A chimney that can be easily cleaned, which takes the flue gases out and which also provides the stove with a good draft would first go horizontally out of the wall. Once it has come out of the house, it should bend upwards. The vertical part can be about 1.5 to 2 meters, just enough to provide good draft. The bend should be provided with a removable flap, for easy cleaning of both the horizontal and the vertical parts.
In our own studies on idoor air quality, we found that a chimney was not essential if there was a 15 to 30 cm gap between the roof and the wall, all around the kitchen. The air in such a kitchen, even with a traditional chimneyless stove, was as clean as that in a kitchen provided with a chimney. In a tropical country it is not a problem to have a well ventilated kitchen, as there is no need to conserve the heat inside the room.
A.D.Karve

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Jul 2 11:41:32 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: chimney
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUL.2003.124132.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Dr. Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:27 PM
Subject: [STOVES] chimney

ADK: A chimney that can be easily cleaned, which takes the flue gases out
and which also provides the stove with a good draft would first go
horizontally out of the wall. Once it has come out of the house, it should
bend upwards. The vertical part can be about 1.5 to 2 meters, just enough to
provide good draft. The bend should be provided with a removable flap, for
easy cleaning of both the horizontal and the vertical parts.

KC: That should work quite well. It would also be practical for "retrofits."
One possible improvement for the vertical section would be to have hooks on
the vertical stove pipe section that would enable it to be supported by
suitable brackets on the wall of the house. This would allow removal of the
vertical chimney section for cleaning at ground level, with no need to get
up on a ladder.

ADK: In our own studies on idoor air quality, we found that a chimney was
not essential if there was a 15 to 30 cm gap between the roof and the wall,
all around the kitchen.

KC: 1: Were these tests done with "good charcoal fuel" or "disadvantaged
fuels?"

2: Would it not be a significant problem to retrofit an existing home with
such an improved vent system?

3: Would such a vent system require relatively expensive screening, to
prevent entry of insects?

ADK: The air in such a kitchen, even with a traditional chimneyless stove,
was as clean as that in a kitchen provided with a chimney. In a tropical
country it is not a problem to have a well ventilated kitchen, as there is
no need to conserve the heat inside the room.

KC: Note also that such a system must have an equivalent area for INLET air,
to sweep away the pollutants. I can see such a "total space ventillation
system" working once the stove was started up and producing relatively hot
exhaust. However, with a disadvantaged fuel, such as wet wood or moist dung,
producing relatively cool smoke, I would guess that the stove smoke would
hang around for quite a while before it drifted away.

There is also a concern about retrofitting an existing home with such a
"total space ventillation system", rather than "point source exhausting."

Such a "total space ventillation system" does indeed have merit in tropic
areas requiring as much "free cooling" as possible. However, a stove that
would only work safely and comfortably in such a home is relatively
unusefull in a home that has a requirement for comfort heating. Such a stove
system could be made to work adequately with an exhaust hood or canopy above
the stove, but they are more expensive than chimneys, and do not help
combustion conditions by providing draft at the fire.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm
A.D.Karve

From yark at U.WASHINGTON.EDU Wed Jul 2 13:50:10 2003
From: yark at U.WASHINGTON.EDU (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: [ethos] Chimney FAQ
In-Reply-To: <003a01c33ead$727a7c40$0f1e6c0c@default>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUL.2003.105010.0700.YARK@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>

Dear Dean,

> Why do you say that a chimney could "solve some of the health problems"
> associated with indoor air pollution. Do you think that a chimney that
> lowers CO to 3.5ppm is leaving dangerous emissions in the room? Are
> people who use wood burning heating stoves in the U.S. exposing
> themselves to "some health hazards"? I know that smoke pollutes the
> outer air, of course.

I apologize if you think I am overly cautious, but that is my nature
sometimes. I think it would be premature to claim that chimneys solve ALL
health problems. For example, if the population density is high enough,
the problem may not be solved simply by venting the fumes, if those fumes
will come right back in.

> Defining combustion that is dangerous to health as poor combustion that
> would clog a chimney is a type 2 logical error.

Now I will reword: a stove with poor combustion MAY (not WILL) also create
problems with the chimney. You are right; poor combustion may produce only
CO and that would not clog a chimney. A chimney would be a good solution
for a stove that made no smoke, of course.

> The stove that we tested was making almost no smoke and no creosote
> (clean combustion) but it was raising levels of indoor CO to
> uncomfortably high levels.

How do you know it was making no smoke and no creosote? Was this a
'by-eye' test or do you have a normalized, measured, time-averaged value
for particulate emissions? I don't mean to criticize your statement; I am
just not convinced that we *know* a priori when chimneys won't clog.

> Even clean combustion creates dangerously high levels of CO in
> enclosed rooms.

We should define 'clean' when we use that term, then. I suggest we use
'smokeless' to mean lack of particulate emissions and 'clean' to mean lack
of harmful emissions including CO. Anyone?

> Some air tight heating stoves that burn coolly clog up chimneys before
> Spring

Really? What kind are these and who uses them? They can't be passing EPA
certification ;-)

> The HELPS stove and the Justa stove both use a chimney to protect the health
> of the family. Families unaware of it are taught the importance of cleaning
> the chimney. Cleaning the chimney takes several hours usually once or twice
> a year.

This is good information about experience. Does each family clean the
chimney? If so, can families in all cultures be expected to clean the
chimney? What happens if the chimney doesn't get cleaned? Again, I don't
want to criticize your good work... but I am interested in finding out
*when* a chimney is a solution. It makes sense that maintenance is a part
of life. But practically, HOW MUCH maintenance is part of an acceptable
solution? The users wouldn't like the stove if the chimney had to be
cleaned every day. I can't answer that; only the stove users can. All we
can ask is: does it work, in practice, in the village, over time? Let's
have some more stories! Do the users clean the chimneys, and how often?

thanks.
Tami

From robertoescardo at ARNET.COM.AR Wed Jul 2 16:06:44 2003
From: robertoescardo at ARNET.COM.AR (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Roberto_Escard=F3?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Chimneys - An experience
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUL.2003.170644.0300.ROBERTOESCARDO@ARNET.COM.AR>

I quote myself about a field experience some months ago:
"CULTURE. I spent three days visiting isolated Mapuche communities with a social worker. In one of them there are ten quite new homes (five years old?) built by the government. They have nice old style cast iron cocking stoves NEVER USED!! They use instead "braseros" (A 55 gallon drum 15 centimetres high piece) or plain three stones fires. After I met with an old friend, one of the most renowned Mapuche anthropologists. When I told him my findings he gave me, and some friends, a two hours exciting lecture on the cultural significance of fire. As anybody can guess it is much important in cold climates that in the tropics. He discouraged us about the possibilities of an easy acceptance of change, he thinks that the way to go is make clear to women the health effects of open fires and have them as allies. We need hard data and educate physicians. Rodolfo, the anthropologist, will make a strategic action plan for us"

Last year we got an excellent ITDG research on hoods, lots of hard data about the efect in PM and CO and CO2.
(downloadable from: http://www.itdg.org/html/energy/peoplestories2.htm The full .pdf report weights 3 MB, no data at the Summary)

After the lecture our stategic plan was to keep the indoor open fires burning and install hoods and chimmneys at least as a first phase action.

We made last april two demo installations (Well, we only convinced two families to make a trial)
House 1. It is a 40 sq. meters house, stone and wood walls, wood tiles roof. It belongs to the Lonco (chief) of the community. We made a new fireplace, a 1 x 1 meters platform, with a 30 x 30 centimeters (cm) grate, 40 cm above floor level. The hood, metal sheet, is a truncated pyramid, 1 x 1 meters base, 50 centimeters high, 130 centimeters above the base. the chimney is a 10 cm dia. steel tube, 3 meters long: 80 cm inside, 220 cm above the roof. At the top we first installed a classical H shaped hat, but in windy days there was some back draft, so a month ago a new one, after a model we get from Sjoerd Nienhuys in Nepal called Beri-beri was installed.
House 2, in the same community. Houseld is composed of parents and three childs, 12, 9 and 4 years old. The house is 30 sq. meters, construction similar to house 1. The fire sits in a 150 cm. square stone base, 30 cm above fllor level near the center of the house. Hood is similar but with a 150 cm side base and the chimney a bit longer: 3 and a half meters. A beri-beri was also installed.
Some results:
No much hard data, our only instrument is a digital thermomether, but:
1) In both cases the home owners say that that indoor air is much cleaner.
2) They were affraid that "heat will escape through the chimney" The lonco says the using the same amount of wood the temperature is "roughly the same". In house 2 the mother says: "It is much warmer now" but we suspect they are burning more wood (They have ample fuelwood supply in the area forests) In any case it is a good result.
3) And the last but the more important one: The mother says that the childs "coughs a lot less now" and that she keeps the fire burning longer at nights.
People in the field tell that there is a noticeable difference in the indoor air quality after hoods and chimneys installation.
There seems to be a good draft: A small silk ribbon placed in the midle of the hood base flames, slightly but unmistakable, upwards.
People in the community are asking for hoods installed in their houses, we can not do anything in mid-winter, 50 cent high snow cover and not easy to get there, but I hope we will continue next (south) spring.
Regards.
Roberto,

PS: I apologize in front of my friends for using "We". I only throw the idea and gave some advice and have been never in the field. Credits are 100% for "Grupo Huelche" members, a grass roots informal organisation working with a mapuche community in Rio Negro, Argentina.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Jul 3 00:28:13 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: [ethos] Chimney FAQ
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.44.0307021022370.72910-100000@homer17.u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUL.2003.232813.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:50:10AM -0700, Tami Bond wrote:
> Dear Dean,
> > Some air tight heating stoves that burn coolly clog up chimneys before
> > Spring
>
> Really? What kind are these and who uses them? They can't be passing EPA
> certification ;-)
>

If you take a look around I'm sure you'll find thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands, with little difficulty. True, new heating stoves are required to pass
those EPA certification, but probably the vast majority of people who use wood
heat still use pre-EPA certification models. I know a great many people in
northern MN and WI who heat with wood, and most have older stoves. In fact I've
got a pre-cert Vermont Castings Resolute sitting here we bought close to 20
years ago, still in excellent shape. When we heated (and cooked) exclusively
with wood, which we did for 18 years, it was standard procedure to have to get
up on the roof and unclog the chimney at least once during the winter. Green
wood didn't help, and when you live where you need at least 10 full cords of
wood to get you thru the cold time that's what most people end up burning.
Around here you'll also find a great many people using the "outside
boiler" type woodboilers which are exempt from EPA regs and which are absolutely
horrid polluters. I've seen smoke clouds so thick around houses in the country
that I really thought the house was on fire.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Jul 3 14:11:54 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Stoves for heating
In-Reply-To: <004c01c33a5a$bd7a91a0$8a271ec4@kobus>
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.131154.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 02:16 PM 6/24/03 +0200, Kobus wrote:
>
>100g - 300g of charcoal used twice daily, normally for heating the house
>early in the morning and for cooking supper late in the afternoon has also
>meant incredible energy savings by way of reduced electricity (cooking),
>fuelwood (cooking) and paraffin (heating) usage.

Stovers,

What low-cost devices are there for "heat capture" for space heating
(heating of rooms)?

This is NOT about how we create the heat. This is about how we capture the
heat. This is especially important if we are inclined for chimneys or
hoods or other "exhaust" methods to get the smoke/CO out of the rooms
without freezing the residents.

We want to "exhaust" the fumes, etc. but with losses of as little heat as
possible.

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From dstill at EPUD.NET Thu Jul 3 13:55:23 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Stoves for heating
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.105523.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Paul,

For at least two hundred years, heat exchangers were commonly used, added to
the combustion chamber, to extract the heat while getting rid of smoke up
the chimney. There is a famous photo of Picasso in a chair in front of a
very beautiful bell shaped heat exchanger in his rooms. I should have showed
you a AT version when you were here. Larry Winiarski has been designing and
testing heat exchangers for quite a while. His heating stoves include good
heat exchangers. Surrounding the combustion chamber with a solid or liquid
mass is common today in masonry or external water heating systems. Air to
air heat exchangers are better suited to most AT applications, I think,
because they take up less space, are less expensive, etc., although the
masonry stove is an amazingly effective way to heat drafty houses.

A good air to air heat exchanger just adds surface area to the chimney until
exit temperatures from the chimney are below 250F or so. Either the stove
has to burn cleanly or the heat exchanger has to be cleaned regularly. A
fairly radical idea is to encourage creosote to condense in a place designed
to encourage and take advantage of frequent small chimney fires that do the
cleaning for you. I have lots of drawings of various designs. The simplest
is a 33 gallon drum held up inside a 55 gallon drum by spacers. The heat
passes in the gap between the drums exiting into the chimney...

All Best,

Dean
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Date: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:19 AM
Subject: [STOVES] Stoves for heating

>At 02:16 PM 6/24/03 +0200, Kobus wrote:
>>
>>100g - 300g of charcoal used twice daily, normally for heating the house
>>early in the morning and for cooking supper late in the afternoon has also
>>meant incredible energy savings by way of reduced electricity (cooking),
>>fuelwood (cooking) and paraffin (heating) usage.
>
>Stovers,
>
>What low-cost devices are there for "heat capture" for space heating
>(heating of rooms)?
>
>This is NOT about how we create the heat. This is about how we capture the
>heat. This is especially important if we are inclined for chimneys or
>hoods or other "exhaust" methods to get the smoke/CO out of the rooms
>without freezing the residents.
>
>We want to "exhaust" the fumes, etc. but with losses of as little heat as
>possible.
>
>Paul
>Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
>Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
>Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
>Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
>E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Jul 3 16:32:16 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Stoves for heating
In-Reply-To: <00aa01c33e59$16f78ec0$36d0fea9@desmond>
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.153216.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 06:11 PM 6/29/03 +0200, Crispin wrote:
>Dear John
>(snip)
>Regards
>Crispin wishing I have a stove in my office

Hi Crispin.

The stove for your office (and for a million homes in cold southern Africa)
needs:
1. an external vent (chimney) because you would not accept the emissions
even if VERY clean burning, and
2. a way to "capture the heat" (or much of it) that would otherwise go out
through that chimney.

Your stoves (and mine until recently) have not had chimneys. Without
external ventilation, neither one of us will use our own stoves in enclosed
spaces.

In contrast, John Davies' has his "coal gasifier" operating inside his
house. (John, correct me if I am wrong.)

I am following John's lead on this issue of a chimney, but with some
variations. And my earlier message to the Stoves list serve today is to
find out better ways of capturing the heat for "comfort heating" or "space
heating".

Although the hot lowland "tropical world" is not very interested in space
heating, many of us are. And whatever methods are forthcoming (and with
LOW cost) for our needy clients, those methods might work just as well with
ANY or ALL of the different combustion chambers, even the currently
NON-vented clay pottery stoves.

Therefore, in my Juntos (Top-Lit Up-Draft (TLUD)
pyrolysis/gasifier/charcoal maker) stove, I consider everything ABOVE or
AFTER the creation of the heat to be part of "heat capture" that can be for
cooking or heating or anything else. AND I am designing that structural
part to be constructed separately and to be interchangeably placed on top
of the "outlet of the heat" (the hole through which the heat rises from the
combustion chamber). Each "heat capture" device can be connected to a
chimney, but that is not a requirement.

Crispin and John, I can easily see how each of our (3) stoves could have or
share any of the same "heat capture" devices.

When the heat capture device is built into the stove (as in Crispin's and
John's where a pot is in place to receive the heat), the stove is less
expensive, but also less versatile. The buyers will decide if they want
whichever style (built-in or interchangeable).

So, to help warm Crispin's office as well as to help me with a "space
heater" component part, would you Stovers please come forth with some
low-cost ways to capture heat in order to warm the rooms.

John and Crispin: I head to Africa on 9 July until 16 August. I hope to
see both of you, perhaps to discuss these issues of what is above our
combustion units to use the created heat.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Jul 3 16:48:38 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Stoves for heating
In-Reply-To: <000401c341f0$e685f100$601e6c0c@default>
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.154838.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:55:23AM -0700, Dean Still wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> For at least two hundred years, heat exchangers were commonly used, added to
> the combustion chamber, to extract the heat while getting rid of smoke up
> the chimney. There is a famous photo of Picasso in a chair in front of a
> very beautiful bell shaped heat exchanger in his rooms. I should have showed
> you a AT version when you were here. Larry Winiarski has been designing and
> testing heat exchangers for quite a while. His heating stoves include good
> heat exchangers. Surrounding the combustion chamber with a solid or liquid
> mass is common today in masonry or external water heating systems. Air to

Surrounding the combustion chamber with the heat exchanger is the worst
possible design. It's just this that causes the "outside boiler" units to be
such horrid polluters. When the combustion zone is integral with the heat
exchanger, the high temps needed for gasification don't happen, especially when
air inlets are dampened down to ensure long burns.

> air heat exchangers are better suited to most AT applications, I think,
> because they take up less space, are less expensive, etc., although the
> masonry stove is an amazingly effective way to heat drafty houses.
>
After attending the masonry heating stove seminar at the MREA Energy Fair,
I'm convinced. Our next house will definitely have a masonry heater. Part of the
discussion centered around the fact that one doesn't need high density firewood
like large chunks of oak, maple, or hickory; that, in fact, softwoods will do
just as well, as would home densified straw, briquettes, etc. Of course, you
still need the same *total weight*, but density doesn't matter.

> A good air to air heat exchanger just adds surface area to the chimney until
> exit temperatures from the chimney are below 250F or so. Either the stove
> has to burn cleanly or the heat exchanger has to be cleaned regularly. A
> fairly radical idea is to encourage creosote to condense in a place designed
> to encourage and take advantage of frequent small chimney fires that do the
> cleaning for you.

Decades ago, when I was new to wood burning, some farmers I worked with told
me about using napthelene moth balls to clean out creosote. The idea was to get
a good hot fire going, then toss in a few of the moth balls. Sure is
spectacular. 8-) I don't think I'd try this nowadays, especially with an older
(possibly defective) masonry chimney. If, in fact, napthelene moth balls are
even sold anymore.

> I have lots of drawings of various designs. The simplest
> is a 33 gallon drum held up inside a 55 gallon drum by spacers. The heat
> passes in the gap between the drums exiting into the chimney...

Yes, I build one last year with two 30gal drums (classic double barrel stove
design) except the bottom (firebox) one was insulated with perlite cement and
had only the small, 3/4" bung for primary air from underneath, then had the
larger 2.5" bung with a perforated pipe along the top as the secondary air. The
top barrel (heat exchanger) also had two 3/4" pipes going into it for more
secondary air, and then I had a 15gal barrel inside the top 30gal one filled
with water which piped to two other 15gal drums on the second floor.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Jul 3 16:54:00 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Avoiding CO (was Re: [STOVES] 5 things from Kobus)
In-Reply-To: <m661gv87r66e85l710tkic70q4a1u8l65a@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.155400.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Andrew,

From your message below, I was thinking that when the gasifiers like mine
and Tom Reed's (except that Tom has forced air supply) are with an
increasingly thicker bed of char, then it might be good to throw in on top
a piece of wood (or other biomass) to provide some pyrolysis-driven heat to
help burn up the CO. (Did I even come close to understanding what you
wrote in the first paragraph?)

In the second paragraph, the implication is that via green or damp wood, we
could get the char to be burned at a rate similar to the rate (cm of
downward pyrolysis) of the pyrolysis. Alternatively, we need to get more
air directly into the area of the char instead of only upward through the
biomass fuel.

(again, is this sounding correct and feasible?)

Paul

At 10:03 PM 6/30/03 +0100, Andrew Heggie wrote:

>Yes this is the point I was trying to make, if you have both CO2 and
>CO being given off at the bottom if the updraught device and you are
>driving pyrolysis offgas off the top then the higher calorific value
>in the offgas creates conditions that allow all the CO to burn out.
>(snip)
>The interesting thing to me was that with wet lumps of wood this
>condition did not occur, my thoughts were that the endothermy lent to
>the wood by it's water content allowed the char that developed on the
>surface to burn at about the same rate as the offgas was produced and
>the next layer dried. It still burned cleanly even with 50%mc wood and
>the primary air could control it.
>
>AJH

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Jul 3 17:02:53 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Char by retort or by "gasifier-style"
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.160253.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers, especially AD Karve and Ron Larson and Tom Reed and others .

"Gasifiers" like the charcoal makers of Ron and myself (with fire inside
the can with the fuel) burn up something like 65-70% of the calorific value
and leave the rest in the form of charcoal.

AD Karve uses retorts (heat is outside the cans of biomass) to create
char. Does he "save" more calorific value in his char? Is his char made
of "less-pure carbon", which could also be called "higher-energy char"?

From yark at U.WASHINGTON.EDU Thu Jul 3 17:48:53 2003
From: yark at U.WASHINGTON.EDU (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: prairie landing
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.144853.0700.YARK@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>

Friends:

Please note my new coordinates, which are (finally) as permanent as
possible in these transitory times.

Address:
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory, MC-250
205 North Mathews Avenue
Urbana, IL 61801-2352

E-mail:
yark@uiuc.edu (Washington address will continue to work)

Phone:
Still to be assigned.

Best regards (and for U.S. recipients, a happy holiday weekend)

Tami

From robertoescardo at ARNET.COM.AR Thu Jul 3 17:58:08 2003
From: robertoescardo at ARNET.COM.AR (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Roberto_Escard=F3?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Fw: [STOVES] Stoves for heating
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.185808.0300.ROBERTOESCARDO@ARNET.COM.AR>

When we began working in improved heating/cooking stoves for cold climates,
two years ago now, many questions arised.
Thanks to the advice of Sjoerd Nienhuys, who worked for many years in the
Pakistani Himalayas, now in Nepal, we focused our work in improving houses
thermal insulation. We cut heat losses by 50% with very simple and cheap
methods: Sealing air leaks with lime-cement, insulating ceilings and
walls with bags of wood shavings and using recycled
polyethylene-paper-aluminium (TetraPak) milk boxes as vapour barriers.
Material cost are less than U$S 10/house, manpower 60 hours (many just for
moving furniture) I have sent a presentation to Tom to be posted at
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/estufas/ "Estufas y Cocinas
mejoradas" (Sorry, no english version available yet)
We also made a model heating stove with a Rocket burner and a chimney
directly
above the rocket chimney. The chimney, black iron sheet, is 40 centimeters
diameter and 1 and a half meter tall and has inside a 37 centimeters dia.
solid cement-pumice cilinder, so there is a 3 cm air gap betwen the wall
and
internal insulation. Above there is a 10 centimeters 2 meters long exhaust
chimney. It dont heat too much, I think the burner has not enough power and
we know the current design is bad: Almost imposible to clean, quite
expensive, but is an idea to develop.
I love high-mass masonry stoves (called Finish or Russian stoves here) but
there are not an adequate solution for low income homes.
Two drums stoves are also used here, there are very good for big spaces,
but
not for 30 sq. meters homes or 15 sq. meters classrooms, the problems we
want to tackle.
Regards
Roberto.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 3:11 PM
> Subject: [STOVES] Stoves for heating
>
>
> > At 02:16 PM 6/24/03 +0200, Kobus wrote:
> > >
> > >100g - 300g of charcoal used twice daily, normally for heating the
house
> > >early in the morning and for cooking supper late in the afternoon has
> also
> > >meant incredible energy savings by way of reduced electricity
(cooking),
> > >fuelwood (cooking) and paraffin (heating) usage.
> >
> > Stovers,
> >
> > What low-cost devices are there for "heat capture" for space heating
> > (heating of rooms)?
> >
> > This is NOT about how we create the heat. This is about how we capture
> the
> > heat. This is especially important if we are inclined for chimneys or
> > hoods or other "exhaust" methods to get the smoke/CO out of the rooms
> > without freezing the residents.
> >
> > We want to "exhaust" the fumes, etc. but with losses of as little heat
as
> > possible.
> >
> > Paul
> > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Jul 3 18:00:48 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Stoves for heating
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.190048.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Paul
>
> So, to help warm Crispin's office as well as to help me with a "space
> heater" component part, would you Stovers please come forth with some
> low-cost ways to capture heat in order to warm the rooms.
>
That is a very open-ended request...... possibly you could start by reading
a book on heat exchangers and heat transfer to get a better perspective on
what is involved. How many BTU per hour do you wish to transfer? what are
your entering and leaving gas temperatures? What is the mass flow rate of
the gases? What is the permissable pressure drop across the heat exchanger?
Is it to be natural convection or forced draft? What space limitations are
you constrained to? How much tar will be in your gasses? Is appearance an
important consideration? Are there any relevant codes and standards to which
the heat exchanger must be built?

Etc, etc.....

Kevin

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Jul 3 19:20:57 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Fw: [STOVES] Stoves for heating
In-Reply-To: <046101c341ae$327ec6b0$0100a8c0@pentium>
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.182057.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:58:08PM -0300, Roberto Escard? wrote:
> I love high-mass masonry stoves (called Finish or Russian stoves here) but
> there are not an adequate solution for low income homes.

One of the things I learned at the masonry heater seminar was that while
almost all the pictures you see of these units show quite attractive heaters,
often with glazed tiles on the outer surfaces, those are just the ones built for
the upper classes. The common people in Russia, Finland (indeed, all across
northern Europe and even China) use masonry heaters as well, essentially the
same internal design, but cheaply made of clay.

> Two drums stoves are also used here, there are very good for big spaces,
> but
> not for 30 sq. meters homes or 15 sq. meters classrooms, the problems we
> want to tackle.

Try building them using smaller drums. Two 15 gal. drum -- or even two 5
gallon drums -- the main point is to insulate the lower one, the firebox, and to
try to get all or most of the secondary burn happening in the upper drum, the
heat exchanger.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From mheat at MHA-NET.ORG Thu Jul 3 19:34:15 2003
From: mheat at MHA-NET.ORG (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Fw: [STOVES] Stoves for heating
In-Reply-To: <046101c341ae$327ec6b0$0100a8c0@pentium>
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.193415.0400.MHEAT@MHANET.ORG>

At 06:58 PM 2003-07-03 -0300, Roberto Escard? wrote:
>(snip)
> I love high-mass masonry stoves (called Finish or Russian stoves here) but
> there are not an adequate solution for low income homes.
>(snip)

Masonry heaters have a lot of advantages in a cold climate for space
heating. They can be burned very cleanly, and the heat storage ability
requires much less tending of the stove, since the fuel is burned in batch
mode. Mainly though, the high surface area/low surface temp combination
results in a good radiant heating effect, which makes it possible to create
a comfort zone in otherwise unheatable leaky spaces.

Adobe (= clay + sand) is a low cost potential material for masonry heater
construction, including the firebox. The only metal hardware required is a
loading door and a chimney damper, both of which could be simple pieces of
sheet steel, and a firebox lintel, which is a piece of angle iron. I have a
heater mason colleague in North Carolina who built a successful heater from
Cinva Ram compressed earth blocks. To my knowledge, nobody has prototyped a
Finnish style contraflow heater from adobe. They would need to be built
on-site, and the labor component would be fairly high.

Best ..... 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 psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Jul 3 20:10:10 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Stoves for heating
In-Reply-To: <002b01c341ae$d91060b0$c89a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.191010.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Kevin and all,

Your comments and questions (below) are excellent. I will give partial
responses below, plus some comments.

At 07:00 PM 7/3/03 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Paul
> >
> > (Paul wrote): So, to help warm Crispin's office as well as to help me
> with a "space
> > heater" component part, would you Stovers please come forth with some
> > low-cost ways to capture heat in order to warm the rooms.
> >
>(Kevin wrote): That is a very open-ended request...... possibly you could
>start by reading
>a book on heat exchangers and heat transfer to get a better perspective on
>what is involved.

Yes, I should, but I will be delayed too long before I can get to that
task. I seriously need major assistance, and there are too many of these
types of topics to permit me to become good at them (and my primary focus
is the Juntos gasifier to CREATE the heat.)

I am certain that your comments and questions are well intentioned, and
please consider mine to be that way also. No sarcasm in my
statements. Just a plea for assistance.

>How many BTU per hour do you wish to transfer?

I honestly have no idea. I am out of my field on this issue.

>what are
>your entering and leaving gas temperatures?

My Juntos stove and Crispin's and John's all have nice good flames. I do
not have real numbers.

>What is the mass flow rate of
>the gases?

Not a clue. (I am not being a "smart alec" about this. Again, you Stovers
have been my "library" and resident experts. Now that Tami is in Illinois
(50 miles from my home), we might get something going on this after August
when I am back from Africa. But she has limited time because of her new
job, so I do not want to overly burden her.)

>What is the permissable pressure drop across the heat exchanger?

Sorry, I cannot even explain the question, much less provide the answer.

>Is it to be natural convection or forced draft?

AHHHH, finally a question that I can answer. Although natural convection
would be nice because of the low cost, I can see many applications in
Africa and elsewhere with a small fan or blower, possibly run by a 12 volt
battery such as a "micro-fan" here defined as a fan from a typical
microcomputer. Or even with the minimal electricity available in many
areas, we might get enough heat to merit a small or medium fan, and there
will be a market for it. Please note that I can scale up the size (and
heat output) of my Juntos stove, so some of the "room-heater
specifications" will influence the size of the stove combustion unit that
we can put under it.

>What space limitations are
>you constrained to?

My stove needs to stand about 60 to 75 cm (24 to 30 inches) high from base
to where the heat becomes available for use. (Smaller models would not run
very long for heating purposes, and I do not expect to have a recessed area
(a hole) in the floor to place the base lower than the floor.) Diameter of
the combustion unit would be only 30 or 40 cm; this includes clearance from
nearest objects to prevent accidents. I can gather or direct the heat into
a tube (as a horizontal or vertical chimney) with diameters from 7.5 cm (3
inches) to 15 cm (6 inches) and direct it anywhere, as long as the final
end is appropriately located to maintain the draft needed to operate the
stove (as is accomplished with a 1 or 2 meter chimney, probably.) I assume
a chimney must have its exit above the level of the combustion unit
(natural convection).

>How much tar will be in your gasses?

My latest model runs clean, clean, clean. I demonstrated at the Biomass
energy meeting in Morelia, Mexico, last week. Of course, CO cannot be
seen. And different fuels can cause some problems. But for my stove and
for John Davies' stove, tar is absolutely minimal. I have read the recent
Stoves comments on chimneys and need for cleaning. John's and mine will
run very very cleanly.

>Is appearance an
>important consideration?

Yes, somewhat, BUT I say "no" because later on people will find ways to
make it pretty. Ugly is fine with me if it will keep me warm.

>Are there any relevant codes and standards to which
>the heat exchanger must be built?

Basically, codes are not a problem. In Africa, even if the codes exist,
enforcement is minimal and hardly applied to the situations of the very
poor people. Of course, manufactured products have certain standards, but
let's go with "modest codes" for the present. (I have no intention of
trying to make this meet USA - Europe standards.)

>Etc, etc.....

Oh, that "Etc" is such a great unknown. We will deal with that when it
shows itself.

Oh yes, one etc. is "cost." First, leave out the cost of the combustion
chamber because that is sold separately. Just the "heat exchanger" or
whatever it is called: Three price brackets:
a. Under US$10. Many local materials, such as clay pipes to be buried
in a pack of mud, made with local labor. Or any other simple ideas such as
minimal metal tubes that radiate heat.

b. US$10 to $50. ( I will be good at getting products into this price
range and then to the people who need it once we decide what would
work. The prototypes for this range could cost much more, but then we will
bring down the price. I am also counting on Crispin to make something for
his office.)

c. Over US$50 (upper limit could be over $1000 for something
long-lasting, blower driven, thermostat controlled, pretty, and heats a
good sized area.)

>Kevin

Kevin, you have done me and others a great favor by raising these
questions. I hope that others will assist with more comments. Thanks.

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Thu Jul 3 20:30:58 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Fw: [STOVES] Stoves for heating
In-Reply-To: <20030703232057.GA17238@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.193058.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 06:20 PM 7/3/03 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:

> Try building them using smaller drums. Two 15 gal. drum -- or even two 5
>gallon drums -- the main point is to insulate the lower one, the firebox,
>and to
>try to get all or most of the secondary burn happening in the upper drum, the
>heat exchanger.

In my Juntos gasifier, I produce the combustible gases (aka "smoke") in my
lower unit that is very simple and could be as short as 20 to 30 cm (8 to
12 inches). I have always had the gases go straight up, but I am quite
certain I could get the secondary combustion to occur in an angled or
perhaps horizontal "internal chimney" as long as the final exit create
enough draft.

How low to the floor should these tubes in high-mass heaters (or other
space heaters) be located?

Paul

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Thu Jul 3 21:09:14 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Char by retort or by "gasifier-style"
Message-ID: <FRI.4.JUL.2003.063914.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Paul,
The charcoal in the retorts is of a better quality, because of more uniform
heat distribution within the oven. We have so far used the oven-and-retort
system mainly for converting light biomass into char. Because such light
biomass, like pine needles, sugarcane leaves, wheat straw, etc.is in any
case not used as fuel, we are not worried about the energy wasted in the
process of pyrolysis. The briquetted char was not tested by us for
volatiles, but it burns so cleanly that city dwellers accept this product as
cooking fuel. We are now trying the oven-and-retort system for making
charcoal from bamboo. Our preliminary experiments yielded almost 44%
charcoal. Considering the fact the the input bamboo was just air-dried
(i.e. with at least 10% moisture, the char yield on dry wood basis comes to
almost 50%. I have given the sample to our laboratory for determining the
calorific value and ash content. It is likely, that the higher weight of the
bamboo charcoal was due to higher ash content, because all grasses store
large quantities of silica in their tissue.
A.D.Karve
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Date: Friday, July 04, 2003 2:33 AM
Subject: [STOVES] Char by retort or by "gasifier-style"

>Stovers, especially AD Karve and Ron Larson and Tom Reed and others .
>
>"Gasifiers" like the charcoal makers of Ron and myself (with fire inside
>the can with the fuel) burn up something like 65-70% of the calorific value
>and leave the rest in the form of charcoal.
>
>AD Karve uses retorts (heat is outside the cans of biomass) to create
>char. Does he "save" more calorific value in his char? Is his char made
>of "less-pure carbon", which could also be called "higher-energy char"?
>
>Paul
>Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
>Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
>Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
>Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
>E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>

From yark at U.WASHINGTON.EDU Fri Jul 4 00:26:30 2003
From: yark at U.WASHINGTON.EDU (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: chimney
In-Reply-To: <00c601c33f8f$3b885710$919a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.212630.0700.YARK@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>

Dear Kevin,

> Certainly, this will be a problem, but the point is that when burning
> "highly disadvantaged fuels" such as wet leaves and wet dung, at least they
> can be burned comfortably inside until such time as the chimney plugs. It is
> dreadfully unfair and unscientific to compare the performance of such poor
> fuels with a stack, and such good fuels as dry charcoal with no stack.

I agree with you. I believe there are a couple of separate issues here:
(1) How is it possible to minimize exposure to the products of
'disadvantaged fuel' combustion, given that many people engage in this
practice, and some members of this list are interested in helping them?
(2) Given (at least) two possible interventions-- poor fuels with a stack
& dry charcoal with no stack-- which is likely to be more successful
(spread more rapidly, achieve acceptance, stick around longer)?

> Actually, I believe I raised the point about the benefits of a stack in the
> following reply to a posting by Paul:

Thanks for your correction on the history of the thread :-)

> OK.... given that the User has to work with a seriously disadvantaged fuel,
> the chimney will be a definite help to the User, as long as the chimney is
> not plugged. The Designers should have recognized that the chimney would
> plug when "disadvantaged fuels" were burned, and should have designed the
> chimney system to be readily cleanable by the User. This is where an
> awareness of the Gender Issues is very important.

I agree that the User must be part of the Design. This highlights the need
for considering that interface on a long-term (weekly, yearly) basis in
addition to the daily occurrence of cooking tasks.

> > --> *** COMMENTS? COMPLAINTS? *** <---
> > - Can the chimney be a cure-all under other circumstances or with
> > different designs?
>
> That is a broad question, but certainly, the IAQ issue can be cured with a
> chimney, and the need for periodic cleaning can be addressed by designing
> the chimney in a way that it can be taken down for easy cleaning.

I guess it depends upon your definition of 'cure'. To me, a problem that
will recur is not cured, but merely in remission. I would agree with a
variant of your statement, namely that the IAQ issue can be cured with a
maintained chimney, if that chimney actually does result in removing the
exhaust from the living zone. Fair?

Tami

From dstill at EPUD.NET Fri Jul 4 02:51:37 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: DON O'NEAL on CHIMNEY FAQ
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUL.2003.235137.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Stovers,

Don had trouble getting on STOVES and suggested I forward his message...

Best,

Dean

He writes:

"Chimneys are the best, single component, of IAQ. I still make the Nixtamal
cooker an outside activity although it burns with very little smoke after
start up. Inside requires a chimney.

In the HELPS stove the chimney is designed to be cleaned. The upper section
(that goes through the roof) is permanently mounted and braced. The lower
section can be easily removed from the stove (and the upper section) since
it 'elbows' into the back of the stove. The removed lower section can be
taken out side and cleaned. The permanent upper section is cleaned from
below by a ram-rod. We teach users to make a stick with corn shucks tied on
the end to ram it up through the upper section (from below) to clean it. It
takes about 5 minutes to clean and we teach them to do it every two weeks.
It can be done by the women themselves. There has been no complaint or any
clogged chimney that I am aware of.

A chimney that goes straight up from the stove, through the roof and is
permanently fixed at the stove and the roof can only be cleaned by climbing
on the roof and ramming from above . That is a problelm as they will not do
that.

I do not use concrete to seal the roof as it is a coldsink and condenses the
gunk at that point. I use a silicon that does a good job, is permanent, and
does not condense the gunk.

An installation that can be easily cleaned, and training is the answer to
maintenance. There is no one magic bullet but chimneys are a 'necessary
component' of IAQ.

Chimneys are absolutely necessary for an inside stove.

Don

From jeff.forssell at CFL.SE Fri Jul 4 03:00:54 2003
From: jeff.forssell at CFL.SE (Jeff Forssell)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Chimneys - other experiences (failed good intention)
Message-ID: <FRI.4.JUL.2003.090054.0200.JEFF.FORSSELL@CFL.SE>

Both these examples (including sketches) are on this page:

http://biphome.spray.se/jeff.forssell/biofuel/3potstov/3potstov.html

Here is the text only:

Rwanda 1999:

The nicely built dispensary had beautifully finished woodstoves built in
pairs at a nice height in 3 or 4 places, for relatives to use when preparing
food for patients. Though built in 1978, they seemed to have been almost
unused. They apparently used too much firewood. The fire passes only under
one pot and the opening for wood and air could not be closed. The tall
chimneys probably took away all the smoke, but probably also took most of
the heat, so it didn't reach the pot which was unnecessarily high above the
fire.

An earlier experience (Tanzania 1989) of well-meant attempts to use a
chimney to free women from a smokey Hell was to be found in the house of a
cabinet minister. The kitchen was planned to be IN the house and a BIG
chimney (about 1 square meter) was made over the iron grate where the pots
were to be above the wood fire. Though it seemed unnecessarily expensive and
not able to control like a more closed-in fire, I would have thought that it
would have at least taken away the smoke. But it apparently didn't (not
enough anyhow), so they had set up a corrugated iron shed with 3 stone
stoves out behind the house. It was, as usual, blackened with smoke.

I had also seen that a traditional iron woodstove from Sweden (at a Lutheran
mission) could work well even in Africa with a chimney of usual dimensions
(10-15 cm square cross-section hole).

From rdboyt at YAHOO.COM Sat Jul 5 00:18:42 2003
From: rdboyt at YAHOO.COM (Richard Boyt)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking Stoves,
Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves
Message-ID: <FRI.4.JUL.2003.211842.0700.RDBOYT@YAHOO.COM>

Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking
Stoves, Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves

Dear Ken Goyer, Rogerio Cameiro de Miranda, and
others:

The following material is the third part of a
condensation from the booklet "Practical Tips For
Potters Making Improved Cooking Stoves. Prepared by
Tim Jones, Illustrated by Debbie Riviere. Published
by Hofman Systems Engineering b.v., PO Box 642, 3100
AP Schiedam, The Netherlands (1993).

"Pure clays with no sand or coarse particles are not
suitable for the production of cooking stoves.
Experience and research has shown that the mixture for
the best stoves must be made up of fifty percent or
less of pure clay. More than fifty percent pure clay
and the number of stoves that crack during production
or early in use is too high.

"A simple and very practical method to make sure that
a clay mixture has more than fifty percent of non-clay
material, is to make a mixture of clay to which is
added as much sand, saw dust, rice husk, ground up
fired clay [grog], or charcoal dust as possible, but
still allows the mixture to be [plastic enough to be]
worked.

"Normally the starting point for a mixture for making
fired clay stoves is a sticky plastic clay. Take some
clay and dry it. Crush it and place it in a clear
glass container three quarters filled with clean
water. Cover the ... container and shake until the
clay is well mixed with water. Let it stand
undisturbed for a day or two. The coarse particles,
such as stones and sand will sink to the bottom. The
soil [silt] will be in the middle and the clay at the
top... . The amount of sand and its presence in a
variety of sizes is important. A good mixture of
different sized sand particles has been shown to be
preferable as long as they are no bigger than 2 mm.
If the clay takes several days to settle, then it will
be a clay with very fine particles. It will probably
shrink a lot and will result in... cracking as it
dries. A simple test is to take a sample from each
layer that looks different. Rubbing it between finger
and thumb will give an idea of how much coarse
material is in it.

"To give an idea of how well a clay holds together
(its plasticity)... add some water [to a handful of
clay taken from the ground], and knead until it
becomes soft enough to leave a clear fingerprint when
squeezed, but not so soft that it starts sticking to
the hand. Roll the clay into a coil with a diameter
of about 10mm and try to tie it in a simple knot. If
the coil does not crack or fall apart, then it is good
and plastic. If the clay cracks and falls apart, it
may be useful for mixing with a more plastic clay.

"The more clay shrinks, the more problems with
cracking during drying will be experienced. If the
shrinkage is more than 12 percent and the clay sample
shaken up in the glass container took a long time to
settle, the drying, firing, and end-use losses will be
too high for this mixture to be any good. [Note: the
clay itself may be quite suitable, if mixed with a
coarse material].

"When making cooking stoves and liners from clay, it
is very important ...to know how much [the clay
mixture] shrinks so that this can be allowed for when
the stove is made. To measure for shrinkage, small
bricks 120mm by 30mm by 20mm should be made. Marks
are made on sides of the bricks exactly 100mm apart.
The test bricks should then be allowed to dry slowly
and evenly, being turned regularly. When completely
dry, the length between the marks is measured again,
and the drying shrinkage is calculated.

"The dry bricks are then fired in a kiln. The
distance between the marks is then measured again and
the total shrinkage is calculated. "Lime [limestone]
in a clay will cause serious problems, causing the
fired clay to crack, crumble, and fall apart. A
simple test to show lime is to take a lump of clay
straight from the ground and squeeze lime or lemon
juice over it. Look carefully to see if any bubbles
appear. A few bubbles, and there may not be a
problem, but if the sample fizzes, don't use it.

"The porosity (amount of very small holes in the fired
clay) of the pottery or ceramic cooking stoves is
important. This is because the higher the porosity,
the better the stove is at withstanding the heat shock
conditions it will experience in use. If the porosity
is too high, then the stove will not be physically
strong enough to withstand everyday use. If the
porosity is very low, then the stove will be
physically strong, but more likely to crack in use. A
high amount of porosity is therefore a good thing, as
long as the stove can be transported and withstand
everyday use. The samples used for clay shrinkage
tests can also be used for the porosity test. Heat
the bricks to drive off any moisture, weigh them,
then... boil them [in water] for thirty minutes. Dry
the outside of the bricks and weigh them again. The
porosity can then be calculated from the difference
between the dry and the wet weight. A percentage
between fifteen and twenty-two percent is acceptable,
but a range between seventeen percent and twenty
percent would be better.

My reactions to the above quotations from the booklet
"Tips For Potters"

1) In making 50/50 mixtures of clay and non-clay
materials, it is unclear whether these proportions are
based on volume or weight. It would also be useful to
know at what temperatures the firing should reach.

2) I suggest that leaving 2mm diameter sand or rock
particles in the clay might be a bit large.

3) Tim Jones makes a good point about lime in the
clay. In my experience limestone chunks as large as
2mm can cause serious trouble when they hydrate and
expand after firing, which can cause pieces on the
surface of the pot to pop out. Vinegar is also good
for testing for limestone.

4) I am concerned that the clays I dug, dried, soaked
with water, and let settle for three days showed no
layering, except for the water that came to the top.
I found, maybe a few dark specks about .2mm diameter
near the bottom. It is obviously going to need
additives. Its dry and fire (2,000 degree C)
shrinkage tested out at ten percent, and porosity of
less than one percent.

Is anybody out there finding and processing clay? If
so, what are you finding? Do you have any tips on
techniques you use that other stovers and I might find
useful?

Comments, questions, and suggestions would be
appreciated. These condensations are intended to
parallel and supplement my submissions on "Ceramics
For Stoves", which at the moment are slowed by working
on "Tips", chimneys, and how to make an appropriate
kiln for firing clay samples.

The next submission of condensations from the booklet
should be Part 4 "Materials That Can be Added to Make
a Better Mixture". Let me know if this is useful
enough for me to continue.

Dick Boyt
rdboyt@yahoo.com
20479 Panda
Neosho, MO 64850
(417) 451-1728

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Jul 5 13:57:37 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking Stoves,
Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves
In-Reply-To: <200307050326.h653QcG24070@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <SAT.5.JUL.2003.115737.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Richard (cc "stoves"):

Thanks for your forwarding the material by Tim Jones. I tried a google
search on his name and came up with some additional good information at the
GTZ site -mostly on brickmaking, but probably of interest to all those in
"stoves" who are interested in your tips on working with clay. I was
particularly interested in what Jones reported on a relatively new (1990's)
type of vertical clay with lots of advantages (almost no disadvantages - low
cost, air preheat, high efficiency, clean burning, demountable, low labor
cost, low product loss, good product quality, etc.)). This was developed in
China and is not yet available much elsewhere. See:
http://www.gtz.de/basin/gate/vertical.htm This make me wonder about
somehow doing the same with a cookstove - as has been mentioned on this list
before by Dean Still and myself.

I also spent more time wandering around the GTZ site and recommend it for a
range of AT areas - some on stoves - and a lot on firing and working with
clay and bricks. Interlocking brick design looks like one that could be
useful for some stove designs.

Below I have some comments on your "reactions"

>
>My reactions to the above quotations from the booklet
>"Tips For Potters"
>
>1) In making 50/50 mixtures of clay and non-clay
>materials, it is unclear whether these proportions are
>based on volume or weight. It would also be useful to
>know at what temperatures the firing should reach.

RWL: I'll bet it was volume - much easier to work with in developing
countries. But maybe some "stoves" member in the UK could inquire further
(also on firing temperature) as Jones might be at (didn't find an e-mail:
Tim Jones
Appropriate Development Consultants
"Cannon Hey"
Storrs Park
Bowness-on-Windermere
Cumbria LA23 3LD
United Kingdom
>
>2) I suggest that leaving 2mm diameter sand or rock
>particles in the clay might be a bit large.
>
>3) Tim Jones makes a good point about lime in the
>clay. In my experience limestone chunks as large as
>2mm can cause serious trouble when they hydrate and
>expand after firing, which can cause pieces on the
>surface of the pot to pop out. Vinegar is also good
>for testing for limestone.

RWL: My wife won't allow any plaster around her studio.

>
>4) I am concerned that the clays I dug, dried, soaked
>with water, and let settle for three days showed no
>layering, except for the water that came to the top.
>I found, maybe a few dark specks about .2mm diameter
>near the bottom. It is obviously going to need
>additives. Its dry and fire (2,000 degree C)
>shrinkage tested out at ten percent, and porosity of
>less than one percent.
>
>Is anybody out there finding and processing clay? If
>so, what are you finding? Do you have any tips on
>techniques you use that other stovers and I might find
>useful?

RWL: Just one story about living in Khartoum Sudan. Every year they make
huge numbers of bricks righ on the banks of the Blue Nile - huge holes are
developed right close to the river. The next year's floods fills all the
holes back up with fresh clay. Bricks have added dung, but Gretchen made
many pots with no additives. Totally a renewable system! And I'll be a lot
less work than you are going through. Maybe I can get into it (we have
commercial deposits nearby and soe exposed at road cuts), but not for a
while.

>
>Comments, questions, and suggestions would be
>appreciated. These condensations are intended to
>parallel and supplement my submissions on "Ceramics
>For Stoves", which at the moment are slowed by working
>on "Tips", chimneys, and how to make an appropriate
>kiln for firing clay samples.

(RWL): Besides the vertical kiln above - there were descriptions of others
at the GTZ site (but mostly or entirely for bricks).
>
>The next submission of condensations from the booklet
>should be Part 4 "Materials That Can be Added to Make
>a Better Mixture". Let me know if this is useful
>enough for me to continue.

RWL: I find your material very useful and hope you will continue - as you
are expert.
Many on this list are looking for special "materials" - especially to get
insulative but strong "bricks". I hope you will include charcoal as one of
them. There has been discussion of using cement that I would like to hear
more about.

Thanks again for your efforts to move us along.

Ron

>
>Dick Boyt
>rdboyt@yahoo.com
>20479 Panda
>Neosho, MO 64850
>(417) 451-1728
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>

From dstill at EPUD.NET Fri Jul 4 17:14:33 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: CHIMNEY FAQ
Message-ID: <FRI.4.JUL.2003.141433.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Stovers,

My dear friend Tami was exploring why some maintenance is performed
willingly and why some is let go. She wonders whether folks will clean their
chimneys when clogged, and concludes: "I wish people were logical; I usually
get my car's oil changed when due, but I can't drag myself to the dentist
every 6 months. Go figure. ;-)"

In my opinion technology transfer is especially interesting because it is a
mix of anthropology, engineering, sociology, political science,
administration, psychology. It is a pet peeve of mine when resistance to a
new technology is seen as "cultural". I found folks in Mexico to be logical
in their choices as I believe we are here in this country. Blaming culture
for resistance to a new technology can so easily mask failures due to design
and/or training. The maintenance on Tami's car is necessary to keep the car,
deeply appreciated, running. But we know that our teeth can go ten, twenty,
thirty years without care and still function.

Education has to go with new technology. Not a lecture but a felt
appreciation, a real understanding, of a whole context. The HELPS stove
program is so successful because Don O'Neal has always understood that
training and education are vital. My experience is that constant maintenance
is needed to keep a old truck running in Mexico. Repairs are not simple.
They cost lots of money, sweat, banged up knuckles, ingenuity...Yet, most
guys at the ranch where I lived could do it using a pair of pliers and a
screwdriver. They spent almost as much time repairing the truck as driving
it. Where people understand that not breathing pollution is in service of
their quality of life, as is the truck, the hassle of cleaning a chimney
isn't significant compared to the benefit. When do we start going to the
dentist? In my case at 50 when I finally comprehended what was happening to
my health, to be blunt only when blood dripped at every brushing.

Heart felt education that changes behavior (not a lecture) is as necessary a
part of AT as good engineering. The two have to go together for logical
human beings to take new paths such as driving less, treating others as we
wish to be treated, using resources at less than the rate of regeneration,
etc. To me the big question is: when will humanity become worried as I did
at 50 about long ignored maintenance issues? What is the equivalent
experience of blood dripping into the mouth?

Best,

Dean

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Jul 5 14:43:48 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:28 2004
Subject: Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking Stoves,
Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves
Message-ID: <SAT.5.JUL.2003.154348.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron/Richard/Tim..

I went to the suggested site and read about the Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln,
and was puzzled by two things:

1: Apparently, the green brick layers are supported on steel beams which go
through the fire. It strikes me that the temperature to fire bricks is
considerably above the temperature at which mild steel beams will scale
badly, and lose their strength.

Could someone please explain why these factors are not a problem?

2: If they use coal fines, the volatiles will be distilled off in the higher
reaches of the kiln, making for significant smoke, and energy loss.

Could someone please explain how the "coal gases" are used effectively?

Thanks

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking
Stoves, Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves

> Richard (cc "stoves"):
>
> Thanks for your forwarding the material by Tim Jones. I tried a
google
> search on his name and came up with some additional good information at
the
> GTZ site -mostly on brickmaking, but probably of interest to all those in
> "stoves" who are interested in your tips on working with clay. I was
> particularly interested in what Jones reported on a relatively new
(1990's)
> type of vertical clay with lots of advantages (almost no disadvantages -
low
> cost, air preheat, high efficiency, clean burning, demountable, low labor
> cost, low product loss, good product quality, etc.)). This was developed
in
> China and is not yet available much elsewhere. See:
> http://www.gtz.de/basin/gate/vertical.htm This make me wonder about
> somehow doing the same with a cookstove - as has been mentioned on this
list
> before by Dean Still and myself.
>

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Jul 5 23:27:32 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking Stoves,
Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves
In-Reply-To: <200307051757.h65Hv7G00423@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <SAT.5.JUL.2003.212732.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Kevin: You asked today re the vertical kiln:

>
>1: Apparently, the green brick layers are supported on steel beams which go
>through the fire. It strikes me that the temperature to fire bricks is
>considerably above the temperature at which mild steel beams will scale
>badly, and lose their strength.
>
>Could someone please explain why these factors are not a problem?

RWL: I haven't understood the entire geometry, but believe the total
weight is only carried on the lowest bars - and the main fires and high
temperature are well above that bottom-most support level. At that lowest
level, the bricks (and the steel support bars/beams are cooling off (thereby
heating the combustion air). How the weight is carried from "pallet" to
pallet is not yet clear to me. And there must be some big weights involved
with many thousands of bricks firing during one day (I guess not all at one
time. Note that the indicated GTZ web site had several other papers
indicating that others were having difficulty getting the success of the
Chinese.
From a stove standpoint, it is the idea of continuously moving something
(fired bricks?) down out of the combustion region so as to preheat the
combustion air that is an interesting (probably not practical) concept.

>
>2: If they use coal fines, the volatiles will be distilled off in
>the higher
>reaches of the kiln, making for significant smoke, and energy loss.
>
>Could someone please explain how the "coal gases" are used effectively?
>
RWL: I gather that most/all of the volatiles are burned off in the middle
region of the tall kiln. At the higher levels you are supposed to be
cooling off the combustion gases and thereby preheating/drying the green
bricks - which will in 3-6 hours have been lowered down into the hottest
combustion region. Note the article said this system is always showing a
very clean burn.

Ron
>

>Thanks
>
>Kevin
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
>To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 2:57 PM
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking
>Stoves, Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves
>
>
>> Richard (cc "stoves"):
>>
>> Thanks for your forwarding the material by Tim Jones. I tried a
>google
>> search on his name and came up with some additional good information at
>the
>> GTZ site -mostly on brickmaking, but probably of interest to all those in
>> "stoves" who are interested in your tips on working with clay. I was
>> particularly interested in what Jones reported on a relatively new
>(1990's)
>> type of vertical clay with lots of advantages (almost no disadvantages -
>low
>> cost, air preheat, high efficiency, clean burning, demountable, low labor
>> cost, low product loss, good product quality, etc.)). This was developed
>in
>> China and is not yet available much elsewhere. See:
>> http://www.gtz.de/basin/gate/vertical.htm This make me wonder about
>> somehow doing the same with a cookstove - as has been mentioned on this
>list
>> before by Dean Still and myself.
>>
>
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Jul 6 09:59:11 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking Stoves,
Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUL.2003.105911.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron

Fromes, Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves

> Kevin: You asked today re the vertical kiln:
>
> >
>
> RWL: I haven't understood the entire geometry, but believe the total
> weight is only carried on the lowest bars - and the main fires and high
> temperature are well above that bottom-most support level. At that lowest
> level, the bricks (and the steel support bars/beams are cooling off
(thereby
> heating the combustion air). How the weight is carried from "pallet" to
> pallet is not yet clear to me. And there must be some big weights involved
> with many thousands of bricks firing during one day (I guess not all at
one
> time. Note that the indicated GTZ web site had several other papers
> indicating that others were having difficulty getting the success of the
> Chinese.
> From a stove standpoint, it is the idea of continuously moving something
> (fired bricks?) down out of the combustion region so as to preheat the
> combustion air that is an interesting (probably not practical) concept.
>
OK!! I can see now what they are doing, and it is brilliantly simple.
Basically, they have 4 layers of brick per batch. The first layer has spaces
for the suppport bars, and the spaces are located so that the support bars
each catch a "row of bricks" on the second layer.

The "brick removal trolley" is jacked up to the bottom of the column of
brick... there would be 12 batches of brick in the kiln. By "over-jacking"
just a little bit, the weight of the entire 12 batches would be carried by
the trolley, but this then permits removal of the support bars. Then the
trolley and the 12 batches of brick are lowered by the height of one batch
of brick. At this point, the next layer of "spaces for supporting bars"
would have "moved down into place" so that the support bars could then be
inserted to catch the load. The trolley would be lowered further, and the
load of 11 batches would then be taken by the support beams. One batch of
brick could then be hauled away on the trolley.

> >
> >2: If they use coal fines, the volatiles will be distilled off in
> >the higher
> >reaches of the kiln, making for significant smoke, and energy loss.
> >
> >Could someone please explain how the "coal gases" are used effectively?
> >
> RWL: I gather that most/all of the volatiles are burned off in the middle
> region of the tall kiln.

OK.... there would have to be an introduction of secondary air to accomplish
this, and neither the drawings nor text refer to secondary air. If there was
a "secondary air effect", then the heat released would simply create
conditions to release additional coal volatiles still further up in the
kiln.

At the higher levels you are supposed to be
> cooling off the combustion gases and thereby preheating/drying the green
> bricks - which will in 3-6 hours have been lowered down into the hottest
> combustion region.

The "counterflow" concept is tremendous from an energy utilization
standpoint.

Note the article said this system is always showing a
> very clean burn.
>
Is it possible that there is something lost in the translation, and they
really mean "coke fines?" That would permit the appearance of "clean stack
conditions". However, there would be lots of CO in the stack gases, and this
could be deadly to the workers charging the kiln.

The Fig. 6 Cross-section Drawing shows the "new green brick" being charged
at the Loading Ramp level. This makes excellent sense, in that the worker
would be "reaching over" the pile of bricks, with his face generally out of
the flow of stack gases. The text refers to "drawing down 3 or 4 batches at
one time..." That would be an awkward situation to deal with: the Worker
charging the kiln with new brick would have to get down "in the hole" as
shown in Fig. 2. This could be deadly, with little to no potential for
"cross ventillation."

It appears that there is "a lot not said" about the operation of this
kiln.... for one thing, once started, it would have to run 24 hours per day,
7 days per week. The strength of the dried green bricks would be very
important, as would be their firing characteristics. The skill of the
Firemaster in charging the kiln and deciding when to draw out a batch of
brick would seem to be very important to the success of the operation.

This is a fascinating operation, and there is probably potential to make the
operation even better than indicated in the write-up.

Kevin

> >in
> >> China and is not yet available much elsewhere. See:
> >> http://www.gtz.de/basin/gate/vertical.htm This make me wonder about

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun Jul 6 11:53:47 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: chimney
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUL.2003.175347.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Chimney Users
I haven't had any problem following what was intended in the messages
either.

I agree that the chimney is a great way to clean up the kitchen, but I still
think more emphasis should be placed on the cleaner burning of the fuel.

The point that some of the fuels are of far lower quality is bordering on
weaselling out of discussing the combustion issue. Just because fuels are
considered really poor does not mean that we 'therefore' accept that they
will produce masses of emissions. I will accept nothing of the kind.

If there are ways to burn lousy and low value and damp fuels that produce a
lot more heat (better conversion) we should do that first before talking
about how to handle the 'inevitable' build-up in chimneys, or whether this
will replace chimneys. I like chimneys but they are ruddy inconvenient.

These are two different topics, I agree, and I just want to draw attention
to the fact that such fuels named as poor can be burned really well in a
suitable device, perhaps one costing less that 10 years total cost of an
asbestos-cement chimney+semi-annual cleaning fees.

I can't support the implicit suggestion that people carry on collecting tons
of fuel and then burn it badly, throw it up the chimney, to be followed by
the work of getting it out again to prevent chimney fires. An ordinary man
on the street would say, "Duh! Clean up the combustion!"

And keep the chimney.

Regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun Jul 6 11:40:47 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: 5 things from Kobus
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUL.2003.174047.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Andrew

I have only been working on stoves since '82 but in that time I have
observed that the water content of the wood is an important (often ignored)
part of controlling combustion, to the extent that if one knows at least
approximately what the moisture content is, one can then make provision for
enough secondary air to light it all up and burn cleanly. I understand your
description of the primary fire runaway even when the air is choked.

An example of my concern is when it was reported by Dean that the testing of
the stoves at Approvecho in June was going to be done with oven dried wood.
I expressed my concern to them directly about this because in a fully
enclosed device, the amount of air going in through various holes is worked
for known parameters, and using totally dry wood clearly is not a 'normal'
situation. Excessive primary gassing is bound to occur without the
moderating influence of the moisture. In fuel-metered stoves one simply
adds less fuel, but unless one significantly reduces the batch, and adds
less fuel more frequently, things can quickly get out of hand.

Now I am not sure about the conditions reported in the only message so far
with numbers about that testing but from the figures for the Vesto, it seems
to me it was not burning nearly a cleanly as we normally see and thus I
suspect that the wood was very, very dry.

>The interesting thing to me was that with wet lumps of wood
>this condition did not occur, my thoughts were that the
>endothermy lent to the wood by it's water content allowed
>the char that developed on the surface to burn at about the
>same rate as the offgas was produced and the next layer
>dried. It still burned cleanly even with 50%mc wood and
>the primary air could control it.

This is sound analysis, in my view. It is also why I think it is important
to keep raising with stove testers the importance of separating the
water-boiled-early-from-the-wood energy in the portion of the test where one
can best estimate it took place. If a batch loader is getting tested and
there is mostly or all charcoal left towards the end, then the heat produced
in the earlier part of the burn was substantially reduced by the presence of
water, and the PHU number should reflect that subtraction. The PHU is one
of the most important assessments of a stoves usefulness, along with the
emissions data.

Using oven dried wood is one way to approach the water problem, as there is
only wood burning and one very inconvenient variable is thus constrained.
But in the case of mostly or fully enclosed systems where significant air
control is involved, there is a real probability (not possibility) that the
functioning of the device will be severely affected by using such fuel.

If the purpose of testing is to establish what a device will do in the
field, clearly the conditions should approach field conditions. Although it
is academically interesting to develop ultraclean 'devices' what I call 'lab
stoves' tend never to hit the market at all, let alone have significant
impact in people's lives. Ordinary people can't make them perform to lab
standards.

I think Paul Anderson's work as well as other gassing combustors might lead
to something significantly improved and reach commercial success but in
order to do so, it will have to be tested and evaluated in field conditions
with 'real' fuel.

With regards
Crispin

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sun Jul 6 12:31:09 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: Stoves for heating - Paul
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUL.2003.183109.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Paul

>Your stoves (and mine until recently) have not had chimneys.

Acutally I have been using chimneys for the coal stoves I have tried over
the past couple of years, initially a coal burning Tsotso. I found that I
could get very clear combustion (note: no reference to 'clean' nor
'smokeless' though I hope it is both) without a chimney but I couldn't get
enough heat from it to be useful unless I either made the fire large or
added a chimney, and the chimney costs a lot less.

These days I can get about 4kw from a burning surface of 155mm diameter (6
inch tube) with an 8 foot pipe. I choose the 8 foot because it matches the
longest widely available sheet size.

>...I consider everything ABOVE or AFTER the
>creation of the heat to be part of "heat capture"
>that can be for cooking or heating or anything else.

In the really poor townships I think the space heating could be done
separately so that the device does not have to cook and heat the room at the
same time. This means it can be converted from one device to the other - a
cooking stove and a heating stove. It is imperative that it be cheap and
last for a long time - certainly more than a year.

I hope to show you one when you come around. I am just a bit busy with
tools try get the parts thinner and stiffened with ribs. I have removed
about a kilo from the Vest to near 5.3 kg total. Costs are now below the
wholesale price.

>AND I am designing that structural part to be constructed
>separately and to be interchangeably placed on top
>of the "outlet of the heat"...Each "heat capture" device can
>be connected to a chimney, but that is not a requirement.

I get the idea. My approach is different but gets to the same effect in
heating/cooking etc.

You will be surprised how cold it is this year. It was about 1 degree in
JHB this past week, at night.

Regards
Crispin

From robertoescardo at ARNET.COM.AR Sun Jul 6 14:34:27 2003
From: robertoescardo at ARNET.COM.AR (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Roberto_Escard=F3?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: About technology transfer
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUL.2003.153427.0300.ROBERTOESCARDO@ARNET.COM.AR>

Dear Dean:
1) Techology transfer is always political issue. Even small technological
change can have, and repeatedly had, big impacts in social organisation. In
an exciting book "Medieval Technology and Social change" Lynn Townsed give
some fascinating examples.
2) We, humans, are emotional rather than rational beeings.
3) Culture has a central role in our behavior. You will not eat cockroachs,
even that they are protein rich and, New papuans say, have a good taste.
If we begin asking ourselves What am I doing and why, we will get quite
different answers.
Introducing ICS, OK, but Why: Because I am an fanatic ecologist trying to
save forest from depredation, or because I believe ICS plays an essential
role in better health and better nutrition, and consider them means in the
objective of human development or it is just pure narcissism?
IMO, and many others, an essential component in technology transfer is
PARTICIPATION (Yes, in capitals) And participate is to be part of, to share.
Only equals participate, non-equals only help or adhere or accept.
We must try to understand the other culture, we must respect it, of course
we must try to change those aspects that are against of our ultimate
beliefs, but we must keep in mind we are equals but different.
I agree that education must play an important role, but educations must be
both teaching the other and learning from they.
Regards
Roberto.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
To: "ethos" <ethos@vrac.iastate.edu>; <doroski.brenda@epa.gov>; "Joseph
Weinberg" <jwaassoc@mail.chorus.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: [ethos] CHIMNEY FAQ

> Dear Stovers,
>
> My dear friend Tami was exploring why some maintenance is performed
> willingly and why some is let go. She wonders whether folks will clean
their
> chimneys when clogged, and concludes: "I wish people were logical; I
usually
> get my car's oil changed when due, but I can't drag myself to the dentist
> every 6 months. Go figure. ;-)"
>
> In my opinion technology transfer is especially interesting because it is
a
> mix of anthropology, engineering, sociology, political science,
> administration, psychology. It is a pet peeve of mine when resistance to a
> new technology is seen as "cultural". I found folks in Mexico to be
logical
> in their choices as I believe we are here in this country. Blaming culture
> for resistance to a new technology can so easily mask failures due to
design
> and/or training. The maintenance on Tami's car is necessary to keep the
car,
> deeply appreciated, running. But we know that our teeth can go ten,
twenty,
> thirty years without care and still function.
>
> Education has to go with new technology. Not a lecture but a felt
> appreciation, a real understanding, of a whole context. The HELPS stove
> program is so successful because Don O'Neal has always understood that
> training and education are vital. My experience is that constant
maintenance
> is needed to keep a old truck running in Mexico. Repairs are not simple.
> They cost lots of money, sweat, banged up knuckles, ingenuity...Yet, most
> guys at the ranch where I lived could do it using a pair of pliers and a
> screwdriver. They spent almost as much time repairing the truck as driving
> it. Where people understand that not breathing pollution is in service of
> their quality of life, as is the truck, the hassle of cleaning a chimney
> isn't significant compared to the benefit. When do we start going to the
> dentist? In my case at 50 when I finally comprehended what was happening
to
> my health, to be blunt only when blood dripped at every brushing.
>
> Heart felt education that changes behavior (not a lecture) is as necessary
a
> part of AT as good engineering. The two have to go together for logical
> human beings to take new paths such as driving less, treating others as we
> wish to be treated, using resources at less than the rate of regeneration,
> etc. To me the big question is: when will humanity become worried as I did
> at 50 about long ignored maintenance issues? What is the equivalent
> experience of blood dripping into the mouth?
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
>
>

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Jul 6 21:35:08 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: [ethos] Chimney FAQ
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUL.2003.183508.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Tami,

The EPA stove test originated in Oregon in the 1908s after it was found that
more than 60% of the respirable particulate in our airshed came from wood
smoke. The test was intended to require stove manufacturers to sell designs
that reduced emissions of submicron particles into the environment.

In February Paul Mushamba described a "chimney" technique used by GTZ in
Southern Africa. I wonder if Rob Bailis, Majid Ezzati or others testing
indoor air pollution have tested the effectiveness of this technique for
reducing indoor pollution.

Paul J. M. Mushamba (ProBEC), Dean Still (Aprovecho) and Steve Gitonga
(ITDG) on Energy Saving Stoves In Southern Africa February 2003
"7. Smoke removal and reduction of harmful emissions from the kitchen are
important considerations for improved biomass stoves. This is especially so
considering the crucial role of a clean kitchen environment in the
home-based care of HIV/AIDs patients. (The pandemic has an alarming
prevalence in the region). In both Malawi and Zimbabwe, siting and
positioning of the fixed mud stoves in the kitchen are done with due
consideration to the prevalent wind direction for a given locality. The
stove is therefore built below a small window or other aperture on the
windward side of the kitchen. If a suitable opening is not in place, the
stove builder has to persuade the house owner to create one. It is easier
though where a new kitchen is under construction, which is the case in many
parts of Zimbabwe due to the land redistribution and resettlement programme.
When the stove is in operation, the emitted smoke tends to flow up the
kitchen wall and out through the opening at the top of the kitchen wall. .
."

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/GTZ/Mushamba_Still.htm
l

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tami Bond" <yark@u.washington.edu>
To: <ethos@vrac.iastate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ethos] Chimney FAQ

>
> > I guess that my point is that if the stove is airtight then indoor air
is
> > drawn into the stove and hot flue gases are drawn up and out the
chimney.
> > Wood burning heating stoves do not harm the indoor environment to any
> > appreciable extent in the U.S., neither do cooking stoves...
>
> That is also a function of chimney height, meteorology (whether the plume
> rises) and building tightness. In the U.S., chimneys are high-- much
> higher than roofline; homes are pretty tight, and (I am guessing) wood
> stoves are not operated when windows are open. These factors act to reduce
> IAP from wood stoves. My guess is that a shorter chimney on a leaky
> building during an inversion might very well harm the indoor environment.
>
> > Let's stick to the definition we all have used for years. Poor
combustion
> > creates smoke. Clean combustion does not.
>
> Do stovers agree that 'clean' means 'smokeless'? I have a hard time
> thinking of a CO-generating process as 'clean', but maybe that's my
> academic bias.
>
> > The first generation of EPA certified air tight heating stoves were
famous
> > for clogging up chimneys very quickly, in a couple of months sometimes!
>
> What were these stoves trying to achieve and certify? (I know there are
> people on this list who can answer that)
> Tami

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sun Jul 6 22:37:29 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking Stoves,
Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves
In-Reply-To: <200307061307.h66D7dG32462@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUL.2003.203729.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Kevin:

You said this AM:

>OK!! I can see now what they are doing, and it is brilliantly simple.
>Basically, they have 4 layers of brick per batch. The first layer
>has spaces
>for the suppport bars, and the spaces are located so that the support bars
>each catch a "row of bricks" on the second layer.
>
>The "brick removal trolley" is jacked up to the bottom of the column of
>brick... there would be 12 batches of brick in the kiln. By "over-jacking"
>just a little bit, the weight of the entire 12 batches would be carried by
>the trolley, but this then permits removal of the support bars. Then the
>trolley and the 12 batches of brick are lowered by the height of one batch
>of brick. At this point, the next layer of "spaces for supporting bars"
>would have "moved down into place" so that the support bars could then be
>inserted to catch the load. The trolley would be lowered further, and the
>load of 11 batches would then be taken by the support beams. One batch of
>brick could then be hauled away on the trolley.
>

RWL: Going back a bit, I hope some stover can expound on the strength of
steel when red hot. I believe that many kilns do use a rolling cart to move
bricks and pottery into and out of kilns - and there must be materials that
can still handle that. I am still intrigued by the idea of preheating the
air in a tall affair in the manner done here and wonder if simple conduction
downward to a heat exhanger would do the job.

>> >
>> >2:

<snip>
>
>OK.... there would have to be an introduction of secondary air to
>accomplish
>this, and neither the drawings nor text refer to secondary air. If
>there was
>a "secondary air effect", then the heat released would simply create
>conditions to release additional coal volatiles still further up in the
>kiln.

RWL: I hope someone could further clarify here. I think there may not be
any secondary air supply - simply enough primary air - which is controlled
by the tremendous blockage in the chimney. But maybe Kevin is correct
>
> At the higher levels you are supposed to be
>> cooling off the combustion gases and thereby preheating/drying the green
>> bricks - which will in 3-6 hours have been lowered down into the hottest
>> combustion region.
>
>The "counterflow" concept is tremendous from an energy utilization
>standpoint.
>
> Note the article said this system is always showing a
>> very clean burn.
>>
>Is it possible that there is something lost in the translation, and they
>really mean "coke fines?" That would permit the appearance of "clean stack
>conditions". However, there would be lots of CO in the stack
>gases, and this
>could be deadly to the workers charging the kiln.

RWL: Should be very easy to measure the CO. Hope someone can report
>
>The Fig. 6 Cross-section Drawing shows the "new green brick" being charged
>at the Loading Ramp level. This makes excellent sense, in that the worker
>would be "reaching over" the pile of bricks, with his face generally out of
>the flow of stack gases. The text refers to "drawing down 3 or 4 batches at
>one time..." That would be an awkward situation to deal with: the Worker
>charging the kiln with new brick would have to get down "in the hole" as
>shown in Fig. 2. This could be deadly, with little to no potential for
>"cross ventillation."
>
>It appears that there is "a lot not said" about the operation of this
>kiln.... for one thing, once started, it would have to run 24
>hours per day,
>7 days per week. The strength of the dried green bricks would be very
>important, as would be their firing characteristics. The skill of the
>Firemaster in charging the kiln and deciding when to draw out a batch of
>brick would seem to be very important to the success of the operation.
>
>This is a fascinating operation, and there is probably potential
>to make the
>operation even better than indicated in the write-up.
>
RWL: Kevin - Thanks for bringing up several features that deserve more
understanding. As someone always trying to also co-produce charcoal in such
operations - this doesn't look like the way - but it must be working well
for the Chinese.

Ron

From f.martirena at ENET.CU Sun Jul 6 22:57:33 2003
From: f.martirena at ENET.CU (Fernando Martirena)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking Stoves,
Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUL.2003.225733.0400.F.MARTIRENA@ENET.CU>

Dear Stovers:

We at ECOSUR were also intrigued at the principles behind this VSBK,
and -with the aid of GTZ- decided to launch a project to introduce this
technology in Latin America. I have told Martin Melendez about the progress
of the discussion at stoves and have also asked him to provide his feed back
and contribution to it.

Martin Melendez is the Vice President of Grupo Sofonias -himself an engineer
with lots of grassroots experience in brickmaking- ist leading this
interesting projekt, which also comes accross another of our projects: the
solid fuel block as an alternative to fossil fuels or firewood. I know he's
preparing his presentation to the list, although I anticipate that he has
only worked at an experimental stage... till today...

I am very happy that this discussion has taken place at the stoves list

sincerely

fernando martirena
____________________________
Jos? Fernando Martirena Hern?ndez (Prof. PhD Ing.)
CIDEM Facultad de Construcciones/Faculty of Constructions
Universidad Central de las Villas/Central University of Las Villas
Carretera de Camajuani km 5, Santa Clara 408000, Villa Clara. CUBA
tel/fax: ++53 42 281539 (oficina/office)
tel: ++53 42 203065 (casa/home)
e-mail: F.Martirena@enet.cu
website: www.ecosur.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Practical Tips For Potters Making Improved Cooking
Stoves, Part 3-- Testing the Clay For Cooking Stoves

> Kevin:
>
> You said this AM:
>
> >OK!! I can see now what they are doing, and it is brilliantly simple.
> >Basically, they have 4 layers of brick per batch. The first layer
> >has spaces
> >for the suppport bars, and the spaces are located so that the support
bars
> >each catch a "row of bricks" on the second layer.
> >
> >The "brick removal trolley" is jacked up to the bottom of the column of
> >brick... there would be 12 batches of brick in the kiln. By
"over-jacking"
> >just a little bit, the weight of the entire 12 batches would be carried
by
> >the trolley, but this then permits removal of the support bars. Then the
> >trolley and the 12 batches of brick are lowered by the height of one
batch
> >of brick. At this point, the next layer of "spaces for supporting bars"
> >would have "moved down into place" so that the support bars could then
be
> >inserted to catch the load. The trolley would be lowered further, and the
> >load of 11 batches would then be taken by the support beams. One batch of
> >brick could then be hauled away on the trolley.
> >
>
> RWL: Going back a bit, I hope some stover can expound on the
strength of
> steel when red hot. I believe that many kilns do use a rolling cart to
move
> bricks and pottery into and out of kilns - and there must be materials
that
> can still handle that. I am still intrigued by the idea of preheating the
> air in a tall affair in the manner done here and wonder if simple
conduction
> downward to a heat exhanger would do the job.
>
>
> >> >
> >> >2:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >OK.... there would have to be an introduction of secondary air to
> >accomplish
> >this, and neither the drawings nor text refer to secondary air. If
> >there was
> >a "secondary air effect", then the heat released would simply create
> >conditions to release additional coal volatiles still further up in the
> >kiln.
>
> RWL: I hope someone could further clarify here. I think there
may not be
> any secondary air supply - simply enough primary air - which is controlled
> by the tremendous blockage in the chimney. But maybe Kevin is correct
> >
> > At the higher levels you are supposed to be
> >> cooling off the combustion gases and thereby preheating/drying the
green
> >> bricks - which will in 3-6 hours have been lowered down into the
hottest
> >> combustion region.
> >
> >The "counterflow" concept is tremendous from an energy utilization
> >standpoint.
> >
> > Note the article said this system is always showing a
> >> very clean burn.
> >>
> >Is it possible that there is something lost in the translation, and they
> >really mean "coke fines?" That would permit the appearance of "clean
stack
> >conditions". However, there would be lots of CO in the stack
> >gases, and this
> >could be deadly to the workers charging the kiln.
>
> RWL: Should be very easy to measure the CO. Hope someone can
report
> >
> >The Fig. 6 Cross-section Drawing shows the "new green brick" being
charged
> >at the Loading Ramp level. This makes excellent sense, in that the worker
> >would be "reaching over" the pile of bricks, with his face generally out
of
> >the flow of stack gases. The text refers to "drawing down 3 or 4 batches
at
> >one time..." That would be an awkward situation to deal with: the Worker
> >charging the kiln with new brick would have to get down "in the hole" as
> >shown in Fig. 2. This could be deadly, with little to no potential for
> >"cross ventillation."
> >
> >It appears that there is "a lot not said" about the operation of this
> >kiln.... for one thing, once started, it would have to run 24
> >hours per day,
> >7 days per week. The strength of the dried green bricks would be very
> >important, as would be their firing characteristics. The skill of the
> >Firemaster in charging the kiln and deciding when to draw out a batch of
> >brick would seem to be very important to the success of the operation.
> >
> >This is a fascinating operation, and there is probably potential
> >to make the
> >operation even better than indicated in the write-up.
> >
> RWL: Kevin - Thanks for bringing up several features that deserve
more
> understanding. As someone always trying to also co-produce charcoal in
such
> operations - this doesn't look like the way - but it must be working well
> for the Chinese.
>
> Ron

From mheat at MHA-NET.ORG Mon Jul 7 07:06:01 2003
From: mheat at MHA-NET.ORG (Norbert Senf)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: [ethos] Chimney FAQ
In-Reply-To: <000001c34428$873f9ea0$6401a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <MON.7.JUL.2003.070601.0400.MHEAT@MHANET.ORG>

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tami Bond" <yark@u.washington.edu>
>To: <ethos@vrac.iastate.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:46 PM
>Subject: Re: [ethos] Chimney FAQ
>
>(snip)
> > What were these (EPA) stoves trying to achieve and certify? (I know
> there are
> > people on this list who can answer that)
> > Tami

Hello Stovers:

Not sure if this post will get through or not - I didn't see my last
response to the list show up, perhaps there is a glitch with the server or
the subscription.

The EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) woodstove regulation is very
specific, in that it regulates PM-10 (particulates smaller than 10
microns). This is a very difficult and slippery thing to measure with
repeatability, since some of the particulates are semi-volatiles and only
become particulates once they mix with air and cool. The measurement method
specified is EPA Method 5-G, which requires a dilution tunnel. Also, a
fueling protocol is specified, which uses dimensioned lumber, and 3 (maybe
5?) burn rates are specified.

The rationale was that PM is causing the air quality problems from
woodsmoke, and the CO from woodsmoke in the U.S. is not as big a health issue.

In Europe, woodstove emissions are also regulated, but CO (and NOX) are
used as the measure of emissions. CO is a lot easier to measure. Also, the
European methond of particulate ("staub") measurement draws a hot,
undiluted, gas sample through a filter, so they get a lower number compared
to EPA-M5G

There is an assumption that CO and PM are correlated, because they are both
the results of incomplete combustion. However, published data, of which
there is only a small amount, does not really support this. Part of this is
due to the complex nature of wood combustion, where there is a gas fire at
the beginning and a charcoal fire at the end, and a mix in between. The
charcoal phase has by nature a very high CO production, but little PM, so
this fact skews any other measurements, which are averaged over a burn cycle.

Best ...... Norbert

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun Jul 6 22:08:28 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: Charcoal from sugarcane trash
Message-ID: <MON.7.JUL.2003.073828.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Tom,
I received your messages about changes in the settings of messages coming to
me from the stoves list. I am sending this message primarily as a test to
see if it gets distributed.

>I give below a report of our work conducted in the last year on
>the charcoaling of sugarcane trash.
>APPROPRIATE RURAL TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE (ARTI)
>11, Maninee Apartments, Survey no. 13, Dhayarigaon, Pune 411 041
>Phone: 020- 4392284/4390348; E-Mail: adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in,
>arti_pune@vsnl.net.
>
>Name of the Project: Briquetting of pyrolysed sugarcane trash
>
>
>INTRODUCTION
>Dry leaves of sugarcane, left in the field after harvest of sugarcane, are
>called trash. On an average, a hectare of sugarcane generates about 10
>tonnes of trash. Because it has no value as cattle fodder, and because it
>also resists decomposition, the trash is burnt in situ, in order to clear
>the field for the next crop. It is estimated, that in the State of
>Maharashtra, more than 4,000,000 tonnes of trash are destroyed in this way,
>every year. ARTI developed a process of pyrolysing the trash and converting
>it into fuel briquettes. Attempts were made under the present project to
>establish manufacture of char briquettes as a cottage industry.
>
>THE PROCESS
>A modern charcoaling process, called the oven-and-retort system, was scaled
>down by ARTI to suit manual operations. The charring kiln, called the oven,
>is a portable cylindrical structure, about 150 cm wide and 100 cm tall,
made
>out of sheet iron. It is taken to a field, where sugarcane harvest is in
>progress. The trash is filled into cylindrical metal containers, called
>retorts, which are 37.5 cm wide and 60 cm tall. The kiln accommodates 7
>retorts at a time. Each retort is filled with 3 kg trash. After loading the
>retorts into the oven, the top of the oven is closed with a sheet metal
lid,
>having a built in chimney. About 10 kg trash is burnt in the oven to start
>the process of pyrolysis. The heat of the trash, burning underneath the
>retorts, pyrolyses the trash in them. The pyrolysis gas leaves the retorts
>through holes in their bottom, and it too burns, adding to the process
heat.
>Each batch, taking about 40 minutes to complete, produces about 7 kg char
>(30% of the trash filled in the barrels). Three workers can simultaneously
>handle two ovens, completing 8 batches per oven, in a day. The char is
>powdered, mixed with a suitable binder, and shaped, either with the help of
>a mold or with an extruder, into briquettes. The briquettes are laid out in
>the sun for drying.
>ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS (1 US$=Rs.47)
>The operator must have some land for drying the briquettes. A
>micro-enterprise having two ovens requires 3 persons to operate the ovens
>and two persons for making briquettes. Such a unit can produce daily 100 kg
>briquettes, having a market value of Rs.500. Deducting Rs. 50 per man-day
>towards wages, the process makes a net profit of daily Rs. 250. Use can
also
>be made of other agricultural waste products such as stems of cotton,
stalks
>of wheat, rice, pigeonpea, safflower, castor, maize cobs, leaf litter from
>any plantation crop or noxious weeds such as Parthenium, Lantana, etc.
>Excluding the rainy season, such a unit can work for about 37 weeks in a
>year. Assuming good availability of waste biomass, six days of work in a
>week, and daily production of 100 kg briquettes, such an enterprise can
>generate about 20 tonnes of briquettes in a year, having a value of Rs.
>100,000.
>ARTI also developed a stove-and-cooker system called Sarai stove, which
uses
>just 100 g char briquettes to cook rice, beans (or meat) and vegetables for
a family of
>five. The Sarai stove is currently being sold in Pune City, and efforts are
>also being made to popularise it in other parts of Maharashtra State. The
users of
>this stove are the customers of the char briquettes. The demand for char
>briquettes is thus constantly increasing. The sugarcane fields in
>Maharashtra have the potential of producing annually about 800,000 tonnes
of
>char briquettes, having a market value of Rs. four billion. This presents
an excellent opportunity for villagers to earn a
>relatively high income, without leaving their villages.
>Summary of work conducted in 2002/2003
>The oven-and-retort process is highly suitable for charring light biomass.
>ARTI developed a manually operated system suitable for a micro-enterprise
>based on charring of sugarcane trash. The process was operated from
December
>2002 onwards till the end of March, 2003. Because of the novelty of the
>technology and also of the product, most of the potential entrepreneurs,
who
>had initially agreed to conduct this business, backed out at the last
>moment. However, three entrepreneurs together with a score of landless
>labourers kept 11 ovens in operation during the above period,
>generating about 1800 person-days of work, which resulted in the production
>of about 37.5 tonnes of charred material. The char was purchased by
Sahyadri
>Technical Assistance and Industrial Co-operative Ltd., Phaltan (Dist.
>Satara), at the rate of Rs. 3000 per tonne, generating an income of
>Rs.1,12,500, or about Rs. 62.5 per person-day, which was 50% more than the
>wages that labourers in this area earn. The work of briquetting the char
is
>in progress. The briquettes have a ready market and all of them are being
>sold as soon as they are produced.
> The work during the past year thus demonstrated that this process had a
good
>income generating potential in this area. The project would be continued.
It is hoped that the potential entrepreneurs show
>greater enthusiasm for this work in the next year.
Yours
A.D.Karve

From rmiranda at INET.COM.BR Mon Jul 7 20:52:47 2003
From: rmiranda at INET.COM.BR (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: About technology transfer
In-Reply-To: <00e301c343ee$62476770$0100a8c0@pentium>
Message-ID: <MON.7.JUL.2003.215247.0300.RMIRANDA@INET.COM.BR>

Dear friends:

Few weekends ago I was in the beautiful English countryside with some
friends meditating about technology transfer and ICS dissemination. Our
conclusion was that we can not and should not try to built one specific ICS
for each culture around the world. We understood that cultures are so
different and people who most need an ICS are usually very rooted in their
culture, less educated and less willing to change or adapt. However the
cost of reaching each culture with a specific ICS design will only delay
the modernization and access to ICS to the 2 billion + people out there
that need quickly to catch up with the XXI century way of life.

If gas and electrical stoves are basically the same model around the world,
and people adapted their local cooking to these stoves models, why can not
them adapt to a world wide woodstove model?

If we look at the old and traditional cast iron woodstoves models around
the world, they are basically the same. Cast iron stoves in US, Canada,
Europe, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and many other places, they are quite
similar, and people manage to do their local cooking on them.

Another god example for instance, is the more expensive masonry stoves
with a cast iron griddle and chimney, which was first used here in Brazil
perhaps in early XX century, but slowly disseminated throughout the
country. Today this stove is well rooted within the Brazilian rural
culture. This same stove is just now (in the past 10 years) being well
disseminated in Guatemala, a country which has some basic cultural
differences in the way food is prepared with Brazil. Nevertheless the same
stove is being widely used in both countries.

For the sake of the poor who most need it, they should make an effort and
make things easier so development can catch them rather faster. They should
adapt their cooking to a world wide low cost ICS that can deliver
efficiency, no IAP and affordability. I am advocating for the development
of a world wide low cost ICS that can be replicated and manufactured around
the world by licensed producers with quality control. Perhaps a "dreamed"
multinational non-profit ICS manufacturer should do it, taking charge of
developing it and licensing local manufacturers or even setting up local
factories .

Of course this approach in the short and mid term will reach only a
portion of all those in need, due cultural restrictions, but time and
perseverance will slowly penetrate even those hard mind households. I
believe that this approach will at the end be faster and cheaper than the
alternative thousands of ICS designs.

Rogerio Miranda

At 03:34 p.m. 06/07/03 -0300, Roberto Escard? wrote:
>Dear Dean:
>1) Techology transfer is always political issue. Even small technological
>change can have, and repeatedly had, big impacts in social organisation. In
>an exciting book "Medieval Technology and Social change" Lynn Townsed give
>some fascinating examples.
>2) We, humans, are emotional rather than rational beeings.
>3) Culture has a central role in our behavior. You will not eat cockroachs,
>even that they are protein rich and, New papuans say, have a good taste.
>If we begin asking ourselves What am I doing and why, we will get quite
>different answers.
>Introducing ICS, OK, but Why: Because I am an fanatic ecologist trying to
>save forest from depredation, or because I believe ICS plays an essential
>role in better health and better nutrition, and consider them means in the
>objective of human development or it is just pure narcissism?
>IMO, and many others, an essential component in technology transfer is
>PARTICIPATION (Yes, in capitals) And participate is to be part of, to share.
>Only equals participate, non-equals only help or adhere or accept.
>We must try to understand the other culture, we must respect it, of course
>we must try to change those aspects that are against of our ultimate
>beliefs, but we must keep in mind we are equals but different.
>I agree that education must play an important role, but educations must be
>both teaching the other and learning from they.
>Regards
>Roberto.
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
>To: "ethos" <ethos@vrac.iastate.edu>; <doroski.brenda@epa.gov>; "Joseph
>Weinberg" <jwaassoc@mail.chorus.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 6:14 PM
>Subject: [ethos] CHIMNEY FAQ
>
>
> > Dear Stovers,
> >
> > My dear friend Tami was exploring why some maintenance is performed
> > willingly and why some is let go. She wonders whether folks will clean
>their
> > chimneys when clogged, and concludes: "I wish people were logical; I
>usually
> > get my car's oil changed when due, but I can't drag myself to the dentist
> > every 6 months. Go figure. ;-)"
> >
> > In my opinion technology transfer is especially interesting because it is
>a
> > mix of anthropology, engineering, sociology, political science,
> > administration, psychology. It is a pet peeve of mine when resistance to a
> > new technology is seen as "cultural". I found folks in Mexico to be
>logical
> > in their choices as I believe we are here in this country. Blaming culture
> > for resistance to a new technology can so easily mask failures due to
>design
> > and/or training. The maintenance on Tami's car is necessary to keep the
>car,
> > deeply appreciated, running. But we know that our teeth can go ten,
>twenty,
> > thirty years without care and still function.
> >
> > Education has to go with new technology. Not a lecture but a felt
> > appreciation, a real understanding, of a whole context. The HELPS stove
> > program is so successful because Don O'Neal has always understood that
> > training and education are vital. My experience is that constant
>maintenance
> > is needed to keep a old truck running in Mexico. Repairs are not simple.
> > They cost lots of money, sweat, banged up knuckles, ingenuity...Yet, most
> > guys at the ranch where I lived could do it using a pair of pliers and a
> > screwdriver. They spent almost as much time repairing the truck as driving
> > it. Where people understand that not breathing pollution is in service of
> > their quality of life, as is the truck, the hassle of cleaning a chimney
> > isn't significant compared to the benefit. When do we start going to the
> > dentist? In my case at 50 when I finally comprehended what was happening
>to
> > my health, to be blunt only when blood dripped at every brushing.
> >
> > Heart felt education that changes behavior (not a lecture) is as necessary
>a
> > part of AT as good engineering. The two have to go together for logical
> > human beings to take new paths such as driving less, treating others as we
> > wish to be treated, using resources at less than the rate of regeneration,
> > etc. To me the big question is: when will humanity become worried as I did
> > at 50 about long ignored maintenance issues? What is the equivalent
> > experience of blood dripping into the mouth?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jul 8 00:12:15 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: About technology transfer
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.011215.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Rogerio

I appreciate your impatience in wanting to do good quickly, but I would
respectfully suggest that the is another way to deal with the problem, but
with a higher degree of success.

My views are basically that it is impossible to design a good "Universal
Stove", because the "total system" in which they work is very different, and
not at all "Universal." A stove system for the tropics, where home heating
is not a concern would be very different from a stove system for a region
where home heating was an important consideration also. A stove system
intended to have intense heat for frying and "top surface cooking" would be
different from a stove system intended for stews and slow cooking. A stove
system intended to run on charcoal would be quite different from one
intended to run on chunk wood, charcoal, twigs, or moist dung. Etc...

I don't know what your available resources are, or what your "target
production" is, but if we assume that you can build say 100,000 stoves per
year, I would suggest that you find a "niche" requiring say 400,000 stoves,
and design a stove system that worked perfectly for that market. When you
got the stove system for this particular niche perfected, then find another
niche market, and develop a second stove to perfectly suit its needs. And so
on.....

With this approach, your task would be much easier, in that you would not
have to make technical compromises for the sake of universality. You could
develop a cheaper and better stove system, that had a far higher chance of
acceptance and success. To view your example of the Brazilian Stove from a
different light..... it took 100 years for it to become widely accepted...

I do wish you every success in your efforts.

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda" <rmiranda@INET.COM.BR>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] About technology transfer

Dear friends:

If gas and electrical stoves are basically the same model around the world,
and people adapted their local cooking to these stoves models, why can not
them adapt to a world wide woodstove model?

Rogerio Miranda

At 03:34 p.m. 06/07/03 -0300, Roberto Escard? wrote:
>Dear Dean:
>1) Techology transfer is always political issue. Even small technological
>change can have, and repeatedly had, big impacts in social organisation. In
>an exciting book "Medieval Technology and Social change" Lynn Townsed give
>some fascinating examples.
>2) We, humans, are emotional rather than rational beeings.
>3) Culture has a central role in our behavior. You will not eat cockroachs,
>even that they are protein rich and, New papuans say, have a good taste.
>If we begin asking ourselves What am I doing and why, we will get quite
>different answers.
>Introducing ICS, OK, but Why: Because I am an fanatic ecologist trying to
>save forest from depredation, or because I believe ICS plays an essential
>role in better health and better nutrition, and consider them means in the
>objective of human development or it is just pure narcissism?
>IMO, and many others, an essential component in technology transfer is
>PARTICIPATION (Yes, in capitals) And participate is to be part of, to
share.
>Only equals participate, non-equals only help or adhere or accept.
>We must try to understand the other culture, we must respect it, of course
>we must try to change those aspects that are against of our ultimate
>beliefs, but we must keep in mind we are equals but different.
>I agree that education must play an important role, but educations must be
>both teaching the other and learning from they.
>Regards
>Roberto.
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
>To: "ethos" <ethos@vrac.iastate.edu>; <doroski.brenda@epa.gov>; "Joseph
>Weinberg" <jwaassoc@mail.chorus.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 6:14 PM
>Subject: [ethos] CHIMNEY FAQ
>
>
> > Dear Stovers,
> >
> > My dear friend Tami was exploring why some maintenance is performed
> > willingly and why some is let go. She wonders whether folks will clean
>their
> > chimneys when clogged, and concludes: "I wish people were logical; I
>usually
> > get my car's oil changed when due, but I can't drag myself to the
dentist
> > every 6 months. Go figure. ;-)"
> >
> > In my opinion technology transfer is especially interesting because it
is
>a
> > mix of anthropology, engineering, sociology, political science,
> > administration, psychology. It is a pet peeve of mine when resistance to
a
> > new technology is seen as "cultural". I found folks in Mexico to be
>logical
> > in their choices as I believe we are here in this country. Blaming
culture
> > for resistance to a new technology can so easily mask failures due to
>design
> > and/or training. The maintenance on Tami's car is necessary to keep the
>car,
> > deeply appreciated, running. But we know that our teeth can go ten,
>twenty,
> > thirty years without care and still function.
> >
> > Education has to go with new technology. Not a lecture but a felt
> > appreciation, a real understanding, of a whole context. The HELPS stove
> > program is so successful because Don O'Neal has always understood that
> > training and education are vital. My experience is that constant
>maintenance
> > is needed to keep a old truck running in Mexico. Repairs are not simple.
> > They cost lots of money, sweat, banged up knuckles, ingenuity...Yet,
most
> > guys at the ranch where I lived could do it using a pair of pliers and a
> > screwdriver. They spent almost as much time repairing the truck as drivi
ng
> > it. Where people understand that not breathing pollution is in service
of
> > their quality of life, as is the truck, the hassle of cleaning a chimney
> > isn't significant compared to the benefit. When do we start going to the
> > dentist? In my case at 50 when I finally comprehended what was happening
>to
> > my health, to be blunt only when blood dripped at every brushing.
> >
> > Heart felt education that changes behavior (not a lecture) is as
necessary
>a
> > part of AT as good engineering. The two have to go together for logical
> > human beings to take new paths such as driving less, treating others as
we
> > wish to be treated, using resources at less than the rate of
regeneration,
> > etc. To me the big question is: when will humanity become worried as I
did
> > at 50 about long ignored maintenance issues? What is the equivalent
> > experience of blood dripping into the mouth?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue Jul 8 00:07:07 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.093707.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

I endorse the views of Rogerio. LPG, in spite of its high price, has found universal acceptance in India and the number of users is increasing day by day. There were some complaints about the LPG stove not being usful in cooking certain ethnic foods, but because of the blue flame, total lack of smoke and soot, instantaneous lighting and extinction, and finger-tip control of the flame intensity, housewives changed their cooking habits and adopted cooking methods and cookpots that were LPG-compatible.
This shows, that if the technology is good, it would be accepted by the users.
A.D.Karve

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Jul 8 03:30:03 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: [ethos] Chimney FAQ
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.44.0307021022370.72910-100000@homer17.u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.083003.0100.>

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:50:10 -0700, Tami Bond wrote:

>
>We should define 'clean' when we use that term, then.

OK but can you put numbers on it? What is clean enough to vent into a
living space and not cause long or short term health effects? I have a
feeling this is not attainable with the sort of stove we are talking
about, so chimneys at least dilute the effects into the great
outdoors.

> I suggest we use
>'smokeless' to mean lack of particulate emissions
Visible particulate emissions? At what level can you see smoke?

> and 'clean' to mean lack
>of harmful emissions including CO. Anyone?

With particulates being visible how do you wish to quantify invisible
PICs?

I'm with you but can you give us any attainable targets?

AJH

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Jul 8 03:30:06 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: Avoiding CO (was Re: [STOVES] 5 things from Kobus)
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030703154046.01c3fda0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.083006.0100.>

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:54:00 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:

>Andrew,
>
> From your message below, I was thinking that when the gasifiers like mine
>and Tom Reed's (except that Tom has forced air supply) are with an
>increasingly thicker bed of char, then it might be good to throw in on top
>a piece of wood (or other biomass) to provide some pyrolysis-driven heat to
>help burn up the CO. (Did I even come close to understanding what you
>wrote in the first paragraph?)

Probably, as long as the piece of wood is dry and small enough to
reach pyrolysis temperature without consuming too much heat in warming
up.
>
>In the second paragraph, the implication is that via green or damp wood, we
>could get the char to be burned at a rate similar to the rate (cm of
>downward pyrolysis) of the pyrolysis.

Yes, I believe Tom Reed reported this IF you can manage to sustain the
flame of secondary combustion then even with the IDD (reed-larson,
toplit updraught, charcoal making) stove you can end up with no char
as the feedstock mc increases.

> Alternatively, we need to get more
>air directly into the area of the char instead of only upward through the
>biomass fuel.
>
>(again, is this sounding correct and feasible?)

Remember I was referring to the burnout phase of a batch loaded stove,
here we would expect the char bed to be intermittent or patchy. The
idd stove has a good depth of char bed, but it is at only ~500C. In
order to turn this into an updraught CO gasifier you need to increase
the temperature (and risk burning the containment). To do this you
need to increase the air flow, Tom Reed has suggested by 20 times the
initial idd primary air, he also suggested the depth of bed necessary
to move the equilibrium from CO2 to CO was abut 20 times the particle
size.

I see there is a later thread about an natural updraught brick kiln.
This exhibits some interesting points. The first is that the flue is
cooled by "green" bricks i.e. the forcing of the updraught is low,
hence the superficial velocity appears low, so the coal is burned in a
C=>CO2 reaction, i.e. CO production is not favoured. Also the balance
of temperatures is well managed, Kevin has pointed out how the
incoming air is preheated by the bricks, which are thus cool enough to
be supported by the steel joists. Bricks leave at near ambient so
little heat is lost in the bricks.

Further flue gases are cooled to near ambient as they preheat bricks
entering the kiln, but so is the coal dust. It is only when the bricks
enter the firebrick zone that there is sufficient heat and air for the
coal dust to ignite, above this zone the coal may be hot enough but it
is in a N+CO2 atmosphere so cannot burn, I would have expected a small
amount of volatiles to escape though.

AJH

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Jul 8 03:30:08 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:29 2004
Subject: 5 things from Kobus
In-Reply-To: <004801c343dc$19596160$36d0fea9@desmond>
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.083008.0100.>

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:40:47 +0200, Crispin wrote:

>An example of my concern is when it was reported by Dean that the testing of
>the stoves at Approvecho in June was going to be done with oven dried wood.
>I expressed my concern to them directly about this because in a fully
>enclosed device, the amount of air going in through various holes is worked
>for known parameters, and using totally dry wood clearly is not a 'normal'
>situation. Excessive primary gassing is bound to occur without the
>moderating influence of the moisture. In fuel-metered stoves one simply
>adds less fuel, but unless one significantly reduces the batch, and adds
>less fuel more frequently, things can quickly get out of hand.

Crispin, I think we both agree that there is a significant difference
between burning smaller sticks, metered into the fire, and larger
lumps burned in batch mode.

I do however make a distinction between the "gassing" resulting from
the pyrolysis of the wood once it reaches ~270C and volatiles are
driven off as pyrolysis offgas and the conversion of the resultant
char into gas, in varying proportions of CO and CO2 depending on
conditions in the char bed.

The effect of some moisture in the fuel is interesting, it must both
have the effect of moderating the rate of pyrolysis but also, because
of its effect on mass flow and its high latent heat in moderating
temperature. When I first came to this list I observed that ther was
little visible soot in the flame unless the wood was nearly bone dry.
I now see this may well be related to cracking of the tars at the
higher temperatures involved if insufficient secondary air can be
delivered.

AJH

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Jul 8 03:40:43 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
In-Reply-To: <000001c34510$d32c6080$755341db@adkarvepn2.vsnl.net.in>
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.084043.0100.>

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:37:07 +0530, A.D. Karve wrote:

> LPG, in spite of its high price, has found universal acceptance in India and the number of users is increasing day by day. There were some complaints about the LPG stove not being usful in cooking certain ethnic foods, but because of the blue flame, total lack of smoke and soot, instantaneous lighting and extinction, and finger-tip control of the flame intensity, housewives changed their cooking habits and adopted cooking methods and cookpots that were LPG-compatible.

I'm not sure what is possible in supplying 6 billion people with
cooking heat, currently I imagine there is little hope of moving
people to natural gas or lpg.

At a macro scale I still think there is scope for refining a biomass
fuel into something inherently cleaner burning. In essence this
centralises the refining where pollution controls could be more
economically applied.

Given the likelihood that cooking with ng or lpg is overall more
thermally efficient that "raw" biomass, from both economy of use
(better control) and better combustion (less excess air, higher
temperatures for heat exchange) then an 85% thermally efficient
refinery may balance.

It would still need to address the basic problem that biomass has a
large number of O-H groups that would be better changed to H.

AJH

From pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU Tue Jul 8 06:42:05 2003
From: pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
In-Reply-To: <000001c34510$d32c6080$755341db@adkarvepn2.vsnl.net.in>
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.204205.1000.PVERHAART@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

At 09:37 08/07/03 +0530, you wrote:
>I endorse the views of Rogerio. LPG, in spite of its high price, has
>found universal acceptance in India and the number of users is increasing
>day by day. There were some complaints about the LPG stove not being
>usful in cooking certain ethnic foods, but because of the blue flame,
>total lack of smoke and soot, instantaneous lighting and extinction, and
>finger-tip control of the flame intensity, housewives changed their
>cooking habits and adopted cooking methods and cookpots that were
>LPG-compatible.
>This shows, that if the technology is good, it would be accepted by the users.
>A.D.Karve

So do I, with knobs on.

Peter Verhaart

From pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU Tue Jul 8 06:49:15 2003
From: pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Fwd: Re: [STOVES] [ethos] Chimney FAQ
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.204915.1000.PVERHAART@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

>Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:48:18 +1000
>To: andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com
>From: Peter Verhaart <pverhaart@optusnet.com.au>
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] [ethos] Chimney FAQ
>
>There were standards for open kerosene burners used indoors. I remember
>the laboratory version of the Downdraft stayed very comfortable within
>these standards. It was mainly about the CO/CO2 ratio.
>
>Peter Verhaart
>
>
>At 08:30 08/07/03 +0100, you wrote:
>>On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:50:10 -0700, Tami Bond wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >We should define 'clean' when we use that term, then.
>>
>>OK but can you put numbers on it? What is clean enough to vent into a
>>living space and not cause long or short term health effects? I have a
>>feeling this is not attainable with the sort of stove we are talking
>>about, so chimneys at least dilute the effects into the great
>>outdoors.
>>
>> > I suggest we use
>> >'smokeless' to mean lack of particulate emissions
>>Visible particulate emissions? At what level can you see smoke?
>>
>> > and 'clean' to mean lack
>> >of harmful emissions including CO. Anyone?
>>
>>With particulates being visible how do you wish to quantify invisible
>>PICs?
>>
>>I'm with you but can you give us any attainable targets?
>>
>>AJH

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jul 8 09:14:18 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.101418.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear AD and Rogerio

I'm not disagreeing with you to be argumentative; I am disagreeing with you
because I feel the "stove direction" you wish to take is wrong, and not
likely to accomplish the good you desire. Following are the reasons:

1: LPG stoves get wide acceptance because they are "better stove systems."
The reason why LPG stoves systems are "better" is that they have a "better
and consistent fuel ". Solid fuels can never be as good in some parameter
areas such as rapidity of ignition and quenching, and uniformity of the rate
of burn. There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels across
the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas. They
have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made",
consistent, uniform and repeatable. Biomass fuels are not like this.
Indeed, two people with the same stove in the same room cooking the same
meal at the same time using biomass fuel from the same pile will get
different results, in terms of rate of cooking, degree of pollution, and
consumption of fuel.

2: There is no such thing as "a LPG Stove"; there are hundreds (if not
thousands) of LPG stoves, each doing a somewhat better job of meeting their
"stoving niche requirements." About the only thing they have in common is
the fact that they burn "factory fuel."

One of the major advantages of biomass fuel is that it can be indigenously
sourced. One of the major disadvantages of biomass fuel is its
inconsistency. I feel it is totally impossible to design a "universal
biomass stove" if for no other reason that biomass fuels are universally
inconsistent. If someone could design a LPG stove that could burn Bunker C
and Point Aconi Coal (6% S and 10% ash), then there might be some hope. :-)

Best Wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:07 AM
Subject: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

I endorse the views of Rogerio. LPG, in spite of its high price, has found
universal acceptance in India and the number of users is increasing day by
day. There were some complaints about the LPG stove not being usful in
cooking certain ethnic foods, but because of the blue flame, total lack of
smoke and soot, instantaneous lighting and extinction, and finger-tip
control of the flame intensity, housewives changed their cooking habits and
adopted cooking methods and cookpots that were LPG-compatible.
This shows, that if the technology is good, it would be accepted by the
users.
A.D.Karve

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Tue Jul 8 10:36:57 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: The Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln in Nicaragua, Martin Melendez
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.073657.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Melendez" <ecosur@ibw.com.ni>
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 10:57 PM

> > Dear Stovers
> >
> > My collegue, Fernando Martirena, has asked me to write about our
> expirience
> > with the vertical shaft brick kiln. I tryed to write some but mainly to
> > attach some photos, that could help explain the vsbk.
> >
> > I am not sending the constructions plans but they are available if
wanted
> >
> > saludos
> >
> > Martin Melendez

See text below. Text and photos at
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
THE VSBK IN NICARAGUA

Here in Grupo Sofonias Nicaragua we are trying to adapt the Vertical Shaft
Brick Kiln(VSBK) to the specific conditions in the country since last year.
We believe at this stage of our investigation that we are in the right
track.

However, we would like to stress the fact that it is not an easy task,
information from India are also rather controversial. It is close to
impossible to get REAL and independent information on the behavior of the
existing kilns. We have started with a downsized model and now we are
experimenting with a life-size kiln. It all looks very promising, but there
are several months of serious testing and analysis ahead of us, before we
will be able to share REAL results that can be verified. Our idea is to
establish a know-how center in Nicaragua, where interested people can come
and learn the full operation under real-life conditions.

The VSBK works tries to use all the calorific energy produce by the material
used to burn the clay bricks. Is a continues kiln suppose to burn bricks
without stopping, an intermediate technology Hofmann kiln. The reports we
have received from our colleagues of "Development Alternative" is that they
burn the kiln for weeks, before they "let it die".

One of the innovations of this kiln is not the use of petroleum and his
outcomes. In India and China they are using coal, here in Latin America.
Since we do not have coal, we are trying to use firewood (twig), and Solid
Fuel Blocks (SFB).

The initial design and the way to burn the kiln are similar, use the
calorific energy to start drying the bricks and the initial phase of the
green bricks become burnt bricks using the physical law that the hot air
goes up.

Here in Nicaragua we had to start from cero, not much information we could
received from the internet, and books and pamphlets did not have all the
information needed.

The VSBK, as we have already said, use coal to burn the bricks. The coal is
placed between the bricks for them to burn. One question we have not answer
yet is how they start the fire with coal.

A basic function of this kiln is that it allows the load and unloads of
bricks while it is still burning. The bricks are unloaded in the bottom and
loaded in the top. All the bricks are placed one on top of the other in
layers of four rows each. The first row you must leave a space to place the
metal beams that will support the rest of the column while you unload the
burnt bricks.

The interesting thing is that the brick column has to be supported by a
metal base (which never should get hot) that moves up and down and has
several metal beams that support part of the column while the metal base
goes down just to let unload five rows of bricks.

The metal base then is lifted up again and reloaded (in the top) with bricks
and charcoal. The metal beams are removed. This is how the VSBK functions in
very few words.

What we have tried to adapt here in Nicaragua is the fuel. We are putting
instead of charcoal wooden chips between the bricks and we have made a
change in the kiln with two places to burn SFB and twigs. They are in two
sides of the kiln and the heat is transfer to the brick column helping the
wooden chips to also burn and produces the bricks.

We have tried twice now to burn the kiln, with not much success. Mainly
because we are using a screw to lift up and down the metal base that support
the brick column. The screw when is unloaded will go up and down but when
loaded does not move. We believe there was an error in the design of the
bolt threads.

The initial phase of the kiln is more or less 18 to 24 hours before the
first bricks are burnt, and almost 36 hours before they are out of the kiln.

Is needed to say that reloading the kiln is more difficult than unloading
it. The heat and steam we have on the top of the kiln, even with the chimney
makes the loading very difficult, since all the heat is going up, and we
have a very hot environment up there.

A significant difference between the Chinese version and the one we are
trying to produce is that they say in their information that you can
retrieve four lines of bricks (150 more or less) every two hours. With twigs
and SFB, we believe is more like four hours.

We have plans and photographs we share here with you.

The VSBK here is still not working and we believe that we are still halfway
before it can be used commercially. The screw has to be redesigned and we
need to burn the kiln for three or four days, moving the screw before
getting to conclusions.

One thing I could say now. The kiln works, and is environmentally friendly

using twigs and SFB.

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jul 8 11:14:26 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: The Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln in Nicaragua, Martin Melendez
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.121426.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Martin

Thanks very much for your interesting progress report on the VSBK...

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Melendez" <ecosur@ibw.com.ni>
> > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 10:57 PM
>
> > > Dear Stovers
> > >
> > > My collegue, Fernando Martirena, has asked me to write about our
> > expirience
> > > with the vertical shaft brick kiln. I tryed to write some but mainly
to
> > > attach some photos, that could help explain the vsbk.
> > >
> > > I am not sending the constructions plans but they are available if
> wanted
> > >
> > > saludos
> > >
> > > Martin Melendez
>
> See text below. Text and photos at
> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
> THE VSBK IN NICARAGUA
>
...del..>
> One of the innovations of this kiln is not the use of petroleum and his
> outcomes. In India and China they are using coal, here in Latin America.
> Since we do not have coal, we are trying to use firewood (twig), and Solid
> Fuel Blocks (SFB).
>
If using wood or "block fuel, do you find the brick load shifts within the
kiln shaft, causing an uneven "top layer" where a fresh load of green brick
is being stacked?

> The initial design and the way to burn the kiln are similar, use the
> calorific energy to start drying the bricks and the initial phase of the
> green bricks become burnt bricks using the physical law that the hot air
> goes up.

When using a high volatile fuel like biomass, do you find condensation of
tars on teh green brick at teh top of the kiln?

>
> Here in Nicaragua we had to start from cero, not much information we could
> received from the internet, and books and pamphlets did not have all the
> information needed.

I don't know if there is anything on the Internet on "Vertical Shaft Lime
Kilns", but I would suggest that many of the operating considerations would
be similar.
>
> The VSBK, as we have already said, use coal to burn the bricks. The coal
is
> placed between the bricks for them to burn. One question we have not
answer
> yet is how they start the fire with coal.

One way you could probably do it is to stack the first 10 layers of brick
very open, and fill the open spaces with wood. You should probably use
bricks that were previously fired, so that they would not crush under the
heavier unit loadings resulting from the open stacking. When the kiln was
filled, then the extra fuel wood in the lower section ccould be ignited from
below, and it would initiate the process.
>
..del...>
> We have tried twice now to burn the kiln, with not much success. Mainly
> because we are using a screw to lift up and down the metal base that
support
> the brick column. The screw when is unloaded will go up and down but when
> loaded does not move. We believe there was an error in the design of the
> bolt threads.

The problem may not be the jacking system. The brick load may be shifting in
the kiln, and hanging up on the sidewalls. Look for evidence of scratches
and scraping or brick damage when the bricks are removed from the kiln
>
...del...

> Is needed to say that reloading the kiln is more difficult than unloading
> it. The heat and steam we have on the top of the kiln, even with the
chimney
> makes the loading very difficult, since all the heat is going up, and we
> have a very hot environment up there.
>
I can easily see that this would be an uncomfortable place to work. Could
you possibly build a hood and stack directly above teh brick loading area,
to draw away the products of combustion? In this way, the Workers would be
working in a draft of fresh air, and it would tend to sweep the products of
combustion away from them and out of the loading area.

> A significant difference between the Chinese version and the one we are
> trying to produce is that they say in their information that you can
> retrieve four lines of bricks (150 more or less) every two hours. With
twigs
> and SFB, we believe is more like four hours.
>
One very important thing here is that they do discharge the kiln on a
regular basis. Another thing is that you will need more fuel volume, because
you are using biomass rather than coal or coke fines.

> We have plans and photographs we share here with you.
>
> The VSBK here is still not working and we believe that we are still
halfway
> before it can be used commercially. The screw has to be redesigned and we
> need to burn the kiln for three or four days, moving the screw before
> getting to conclusions.
>
> One thing I could say now. The kiln works, and is environmentally friendly
>
> using twigs and SFB.

You have a very interesting project and I wish you every success with it.

Kevin Chisholm

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Tue Jul 8 15:33:50 2003
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.123350.0700.>

Kevin,

Your analysis misses out on one single and critical aspect of biomas: A
relatively wide variety of biomass resources can be briquetted locally allover
the globe, with relatively small variations in shape, density and energy
content. It can include the "holey or unholey" charred and briquetted, or the
briquette which is processed directly on site. That would seem to favor your
argument for consistency without having to fall into the trap of relying upon
centrally controlled fuels and the attendent petroleum culture we have all
fallen into as a result.

Instead, lets shoot for lots of small decentralised activities, each networked
to gain / share information but still independent financially, each responding
to its own local resource base yet producing relatively consistent fuels for
a few relatively well designed relatively inexpensive and locally replicable
stoves.

Lets NOT patent the designs but instead encourage each to be produced and
sold locally in the open local markets. Lets leave the government and
development out of it all so as to not distort the real market and real
capacity and real local ingenuity and initiative.

I'm more in the Mahattea Karve and Senor Miranda's camp on this one.

Regards,

Richard Stanley

PS., Aligned to this (somewhat inadvertantly), Kobus Venter and I are hot
into some very promising tests with gassification of the holey briquette based
on Lenny Hansen's initial design and the contributions of many on this
newsgroup. There will be and ethically could be no patent for such a wide
source of information: Its real success or demise will be based on the local
producer's quality and initiative in locally based production in open local
competition, not on patent control and threat of litigation.

We will have the results out to you all when we are sure of what we are doing
of better put when we are sure of what we have actually done or, finally if we
just get so hung up we can't figure out where to go next. Thus far the
indications are that with a control over size and shape and contents, we can
achieve gassification with (Ron !) useable "handle-able" char for
rebriquetting, using the same press whih produced the initial briquettes on
site. Have lots of continuous feed and primary air control issues to resolve
but we are getting there, thanks mostly to Kobus' steadfast and well ordered
structuring of the tests.

Kevin Chisholm wrote:

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue Jul 8 09:00:22 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: gaseous fuel
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.183022.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Andrew,
I did not advocate that the two billion people who are today using
unprocessed biomass as domestic fuel should be supplied with LPG or natural
gas. I only sited the acceptance of LPG by the average Indian housewife as
an example of how a good technology can overcome ethnic and cultural
inhibitions if it is sufficiently user friendly. You may remember my having
reported some time ago that I had developed a compact biogas digester, that
required daily just 1 kg waste starch (seed of various trees, grain damaged
by rain or by insects, oilcake of nonedible oilseeds, banana rhizomes,
leftover food etc) to produce about 800 litres of biogas, sufficient to cook
the food of a family consisting of 5 persons. The biogas plant is so small
that one can keep it inside the kitchen, but because our present prototype
is malodorous, we are working on another, which is totally sealed. We should
be ready with the new model in another month or so. This biogas digester
costs just Rs. 1500 (US$ 30). It is as user friendly as LPG, and yet much
cheaper to operate than LPG. Since farmers would always have some quantity
of waste starchy material with them, we are hoping that this digester would
be very popular in the rural areas.
Yours
A.D.Karve
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Heggie <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Date: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

>On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:37:07 +0530, A.D. Karve wrote:
>
>> LPG, in spite of its high price, has found universal acceptance in India
and the number of users is increasing day by day. There were some
complaints about the LPG stove not being usful in cooking certain ethnic
foods, but because of the blue flame, total lack of smoke and soot,
instantaneous lighting and extinction, and finger-tip control of the flame
intensity, housewives changed their cooking habits and adopted cooking
methods and cookpots that were LPG-compatible.
>
>I'm not sure what is possible in supplying 6 billion people with
>cooking heat, currently I imagine there is little hope of moving
>people to natural gas or lpg.
>
>At a macro scale I still think there is scope for refining a biomass
>fuel into something inherently cleaner burning. In essence this
>centralises the refining where pollution controls could be more
>economically applied.
>
>Given the likelihood that cooking with ng or lpg is overall more
>thermally efficient that "raw" biomass, from both economy of use
>(better control) and better combustion (less excess air, higher
>temperatures for heat exchange) then an 85% thermally efficient
>refinery may balance.
>
>It would still need to address the basic problem that biomass has a
>large number of O-H groups that would be better changed to H.
>
>AJH
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Jul 9 00:43:02 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.014302.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Stanley" <rstanley@LEGACYFOUND.ORG>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

Thanks for your comments...

> Your analysis misses out on one single and critical aspect of biomas: A
> relatively wide variety of biomass resources can be briquetted locally
allover
> the globe, with relatively small variations in shape, density and energy
> content.

That would be wonderful, if such a uniform fuel was actually available
locally all over the globe, and if it was, then this would make the Stove
Designer's task very much easier, but it isn't available globally However,
perhaps if they were available on a widespread basis over a specific area,
this would be a great "niche" to develop the first stove for.

It can include the "holey or unholey" charred and briquetted, or the
> briquette which is processed directly on site. That would seem to favor
your
> argument for consistency without having to fall into the trap of relying
upon
> centrally controlled fuels and the attendent petroleum culture we have all
> fallen into as a result.

Holey and unholey, charred and briquetted are exactly what makes life
difficult for the stove designer!! This implies 4 different fuel conditions:
1: Holey, charred
2: Holey, briquetted
3: Unholey, charred
4: Unholey, briquetted.

Can you pick only ONE of these 4 fuelling options, and discard the remaining
three? If you could then it would be a big step toward making a single stove
for the area in which the selected fuel was to be made available as the
standard.
>
> Instead, lets shoot for lots of small decentralised activities, each
networked
> to gain / share information but still independent financially, each
responding
> to its own local resource base yet producing relatively consistent fuels
for
> a few relatively well designed relatively inexpensive and locally
replicable
> stoves.

You are making an excellent case for NOT making a single stove!! :-)
>
> Lets NOT patent the designs but instead encourage each to be produced and
> sold locally in the open local markets. Lets leave the government and
> development out of it all so as to not distort the real market and real
> capacity and real local ingenuity and initiative.

There are good things to be said for Patents. It costs a lot of money to
develop a good stove design, and if it was patentable, it could provide an
income to support ongoing improvement work, and could enable the perfection
of stove systems for different purposes. Superficially, patents are bad if
the Patent Owner has a "dog in the manger" attitude and charges an excessive
royalty. However, the patent Owner does indeed have the moral right to
invention, since he developed it. This is usually not a problem, in that
invariably, the Patent Owner can maximize his return if he charges a
reasonable royalty.
>
> I'm more in the Mahattea Karve and Senor Miranda's camp on this one.
>
They are suggesting "putting all their eggs in one basket." For many
reasons, some of which you clearly spell out above, I think this is not the
best strategy for them to accomplish the good that they want.

> Regards,
>
> Richard Stanley
>
> PS., Aligned to this (somewhat inadvertantly), Kobus Venter and I are
hot
> into some very promising tests with gassification of the holey briquette
based
> on Lenny Hansen's initial design and the contributions of many on this
> newsgroup. There will be and ethically could be no patent for such a wide
> source of information: Its real success or demise will be based on the
local
> producer's quality and initiative in locally based production in open
local
> competition, not on patent control and threat of litigation.

You touch on a wide range of important points here. External gasification of
the biomass fuel would indeed simplify the Stove Designer's task.... it
would be almost as easy as designing a LPG stove!! :-) If the success or
failure of he process is dependant on the skills and attitudes of the local
producer, this infers that a particularily skilled and conscientious
operator is required; is there anything that can be done to reduce the skill
requirements for the local operator, so that it is inherently easier for all
such producers to make a consistently acceptable product? Consider for
example, Portland Cement... it is easy to make a better cement than
"standard" Portland Cement. The Portland Cement Producers Association wisely
agreed on a standard that anyone can easily meet, and as a result, they have
a universally uniform product that greatly simplfies the task of the
Concrete Designer.
>
> We will have the results out to you all when we are sure of what we are
doing
> of better put when we are sure of what we have actually done or, finally
if we
> just get so hung up we can't figure out where to go next. Thus far the
> indications are that with a control over size and shape and contents, we
can
> achieve gassification with (Ron !) useable "handle-able" char for
> rebriquetting, using the same press whih produced the initial briquettes
on
> site. Have lots of continuous feed and primary air control issues to
resolve
> but we are getting there, thanks mostly to Kobus' steadfast and well
ordered
> structuring of the tests.

We all wish you every success with your good work.

Kevin
>
> Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> > Dear AD and Rogerio
> >
> > I'm not disagreeing with you to be argumentative; I am disagreeing with
you
> > because I feel the "stove direction" you wish to take is wrong, and not
> > likely to accomplish the good you desire. Following are the reasons:
> >
> > 1: LPG stoves get wide acceptance because they are "better stove
systems."
> > The reason why LPG stoves systems are "better" is that they have a
"better
> > and consistent fuel ". Solid fuels can never be as good in some
parameter
> > areas such as rapidity of ignition and quenching, and uniformity of the
rate
> > of burn. There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels
across
> > the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas.
They
> > have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made",
> > consistent, uniform and repeatable. Biomass fuels are not like this.
> > Indeed, two people with the same stove in the same room cooking the same
> > meal at the same time using biomass fuel from the same pile will get
> > different results, in terms of rate of cooking, degree of pollution, and
> > consumption of fuel.
> >
> > 2: There is no such thing as "a LPG Stove"; there are hundreds (if not
> > thousands) of LPG stoves, each doing a somewhat better job of meeting
their
> > "stoving niche requirements." About the only thing they have in common
is
> > the fact that they burn "factory fuel."
> >
> > One of the major advantages of biomass fuel is that it can be
indigenously
> > sourced. One of the major disadvantages of biomass fuel is its
> > inconsistency. I feel it is totally impossible to design a "universal
> > biomass stove" if for no other reason that biomass fuels are universally
> > inconsistent. If someone could design a LPG stove that could burn Bunker
C
> > and Point Aconi Coal (6% S and 10% ash), then there might be some hope.
:-)
> >
> > Best Wishes,
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Wed Jul 9 02:04:50 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Info about Juntos gasifier stove
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.010450.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

I have placed substantial new information at my personal website about the
development of the Juntos gasifier. See it
at www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

Includes pictures of the latest version that I am taking to Mozambique with
me this morning.

Now only 2 hours before I leave home. will be back on 18 August. Until
then, e-mail access with be irregular and infrequent and I can only read
selections - so if a message is closely related to me, please catch my
attention with your Subject line.

Keep having fun with stoves!!

From pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU Wed Jul 9 02:33:07 2003
From: pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Kilns
In-Reply-To: <0HHQ004OWSE14I@ipop1.tm.net.my>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.163307.1000.PVERHAART@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

Stovers,

This message, purporting to come from highly respected A.D.Karve
contained an attachment which raised my suspicions. Don't open it unless
Dr. Karve tells you he actually sent it.

Peter (once burnt) Verhaart

At 13:25 09/07/03 +0800, you wrote:

>--Boundary_(ID_WN4KYNTgGXQkJ4Kr1iTWBg)
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Dear Tom and Paul,
>I spent the last four days at Phaltan, looking at the charring kilns =
>installed by ARTI at various sites. The operators in most cases are =
>unemployed rural youth. After demonstrating the process to them on our =
>own kiln they were provided wit`

From rmiranda at INET.COM.BR Wed Jul 9 08:12:22 2003
From: rmiranda at INET.COM.BR (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: The Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln in Nicaragua, Martin Melendez
In-Reply-To: <011101c3455e$657cdcb0$6401a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.091222.0300.RMIRANDA@INET.COM.BR>

Dear Martin:

We have a project aimed to the brick and lime industry of Nicaragua,
helping them to establish forest replacement associations to secure in a
sustainable way, the long term need of firewood for their
production. The forest replacement association also seeks improve
efficiency of the old kilns, as well to provide environmental services such
as carbon sequestration.

I think your project match very well our goals.

Where in Nicaragua are you working?

Saludos

Rogerio Miranda

At 07:36 a.m. 08/07/03 -0700, Tom Miles wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Melendez" <ecosur@ibw.com.ni>
> > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 10:57 PM
>
> > > Dear Stovers
> > >
> > > My collegue, Fernando Martirena, has asked me to write about our
> > expirience
> > > with the vertical shaft brick kiln. I tryed to write some but mainly to
> > > attach some photos, that could help explain the vsbk.
> > >
> > > I am not sending the constructions plans but they are available if
>wanted
> > >
> > > saludos
> > >
> > > Martin Melendez
>
>See text below. Text and photos at
>http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
>THE VSBK IN NICARAGUA
>
>Here in Grupo Sofonias Nicaragua we are trying to adapt the Vertical Shaft
>Brick Kiln(VSBK) to the specific conditions in the country since last year.
>We believe at this stage of our investigation that we are in the right
>track.
>
>However, we would like to stress the fact that it is not an easy task,
>information from India are also rather controversial. It is close to
>impossible to get REAL and independent information on the behavior of the
>existing kilns. We have started with a downsized model and now we are
>experimenting with a life-size kiln. It all looks very promising, but there
>are several months of serious testing and analysis ahead of us, before we
>will be able to share REAL results that can be verified. Our idea is to
>establish a know-how center in Nicaragua, where interested people can come
>and learn the full operation under real-life conditions.
>
>The VSBK works tries to use all the calorific energy produce by the material
>used to burn the clay bricks. Is a continues kiln suppose to burn bricks
>without stopping, an intermediate technology Hofmann kiln. The reports we
>have received from our colleagues of "Development Alternative" is that they
>burn the kiln for weeks, before they "let it die".
>
>One of the innovations of this kiln is not the use of petroleum and his
>outcomes. In India and China they are using coal, here in Latin America.
>Since we do not have coal, we are trying to use firewood (twig), and Solid
>Fuel Blocks (SFB).
>
>The initial design and the way to burn the kiln are similar, use the
>calorific energy to start drying the bricks and the initial phase of the
>green bricks become burnt bricks using the physical law that the hot air
>goes up.
>
>Here in Nicaragua we had to start from cero, not much information we could
>received from the internet, and books and pamphlets did not have all the
>information needed.
>
>The VSBK, as we have already said, use coal to burn the bricks. The coal is
>placed between the bricks for them to burn. One question we have not answer
>yet is how they start the fire with coal.
>
>A basic function of this kiln is that it allows the load and unloads of
>bricks while it is still burning. The bricks are unloaded in the bottom and
>loaded in the top. All the bricks are placed one on top of the other in
>layers of four rows each. The first row you must leave a space to place the
>metal beams that will support the rest of the column while you unload the
>burnt bricks.
>
>The interesting thing is that the brick column has to be supported by a
>metal base (which never should get hot) that moves up and down and has
>several metal beams that support part of the column while the metal base
>goes down just to let unload five rows of bricks.
>
>The metal base then is lifted up again and reloaded (in the top) with bricks
>and charcoal. The metal beams are removed. This is how the VSBK functions in
>very few words.
>
>What we have tried to adapt here in Nicaragua is the fuel. We are putting
>instead of charcoal wooden chips between the bricks and we have made a
>change in the kiln with two places to burn SFB and twigs. They are in two
>sides of the kiln and the heat is transfer to the brick column helping the
>wooden chips to also burn and produces the bricks.
>
>We have tried twice now to burn the kiln, with not much success. Mainly
>because we are using a screw to lift up and down the metal base that support
>the brick column. The screw when is unloaded will go up and down but when
>loaded does not move. We believe there was an error in the design of the
>bolt threads.
>
>The initial phase of the kiln is more or less 18 to 24 hours before the
>first bricks are burnt, and almost 36 hours before they are out of the kiln.
>
>Is needed to say that reloading the kiln is more difficult than unloading
>it. The heat and steam we have on the top of the kiln, even with the chimney
>makes the loading very difficult, since all the heat is going up, and we
>have a very hot environment up there.
>
>A significant difference between the Chinese version and the one we are
>trying to produce is that they say in their information that you can
>retrieve four lines of bricks (150 more or less) every two hours. With twigs
>and SFB, we believe is more like four hours.
>
>We have plans and photographs we share here with you.
>
>The VSBK here is still not working and we believe that we are still halfway
>before it can be used commercially. The screw has to be redesigned and we
>need to burn the kiln for three or four days, moving the screw before
>getting to conclusions.
>
>One thing I could say now. The kiln works, and is environmentally friendly
>
>using twigs and SFB.

From f.martirena at ENET.CU Wed Jul 9 08:45:38 2003
From: f.martirena at ENET.CU (Fernando Martirena)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: The Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln in Nicaragua, Martin Melendez
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.084538.0400.F.MARTIRENA@ENET.CU>

Dear Roberto:

This idea of yours goes perfectly along with our dreams of linking
reforestation with biomass-for-fuel projects. You may have read about what
we have done with the Solid Fuel Block, a briquette made of shopped biomass
and clay as a binder. The SFB has proven to be an excelent fuel for brick
firing and we are looking forward to disseminating this results by using
this in more efficient kilns, such as the VSBK.

Our idea is to have a forestry plantation -actually Martin has a wealth of
expertise and is currently running projects on reforestation- where some
leaves and branches can be harvested at aproximately 3-4 years (en espa?ol
se llama "raleo"). This could be the raw material to manufacture the SFB,
which could be then used to firing bricks. This could provide a way of
making reforestation projects sustainable at the short run, one of the
weaknesses of these projects.

Martin is the coordinator of ECOsur for Latin America. He is based in
Jinotepe, some 60 km away from Managua. I am sure he will contact you, and
hope some sinergy can be done between both projects

saludos fraternos

fernando
____________________________
Jos? Fernando Martirena Hern?ndez (Prof. PhD Ing.)
CIDEM Facultad de Construcciones/Faculty of Constructions
Universidad Central de las Villas/Central University of Las Villas
Carretera de Camajuani km 5, Santa Clara 408000, Villa Clara. CUBA
tel/fax: ++53 42 281539 (oficina/office)
tel: ++53 42 203065 (casa/home)
e-mail: F.Martirena@enet.cu
website: www.ecosur.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda" <rmiranda@INET.COM.BR>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] The Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln in Nicaragua, Martin
Melendez

> Dear Martin:
>
> We have a project aimed to the brick and lime industry of Nicaragua,
> helping them to establish forest replacement associations to secure in a
> sustainable way, the long term need of firewood for their
> production. The forest replacement association also seeks improve
> efficiency of the old kilns, as well to provide environmental services
such
> as carbon sequestration.
>
> I think your project match very well our goals.
>
> Where in Nicaragua are you working?
>
> Saludos
>
> Rogerio Miranda
>
> At 07:36 a.m. 08/07/03 -0700, Tom Miles wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Martin Melendez" <ecosur@ibw.com.ni>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 10:57 PM
> >
> > > > Dear Stovers
> > > >
> > > > My collegue, Fernando Martirena, has asked me to write about our
> > > expirience
> > > > with the vertical shaft brick kiln. I tryed to write some but mainly
to
> > > > attach some photos, that could help explain the vsbk.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sending the constructions plans but they are available if
> >wanted
> > > >
> > > > saludos
> > > >
> > > > Martin Melendez
> >
> >See text below. Text and photos at
> >http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
> >THE VSBK IN NICARAGUA
> >
> >Here in Grupo Sofonias Nicaragua we are trying to adapt the Vertical
Shaft
> >Brick Kiln(VSBK) to the specific conditions in the country since last
year.
> >We believe at this stage of our investigation that we are in the right
> >track.
> >
> >However, we would like to stress the fact that it is not an easy task,
> >information from India are also rather controversial. It is close to
> >impossible to get REAL and independent information on the behavior of the
> >existing kilns. We have started with a downsized model and now we are
> >experimenting with a life-size kiln. It all looks very promising, but
there
> >are several months of serious testing and analysis ahead of us, before we
> >will be able to share REAL results that can be verified. Our idea is to
> >establish a know-how center in Nicaragua, where interested people can
come
> >and learn the full operation under real-life conditions.
> >
> >The VSBK works tries to use all the calorific energy produce by the
material
> >used to burn the clay bricks. Is a continues kiln suppose to burn bricks
> >without stopping, an intermediate technology Hofmann kiln. The reports we
> >have received from our colleagues of "Development Alternative" is that
they
> >burn the kiln for weeks, before they "let it die".
> >
> >One of the innovations of this kiln is not the use of petroleum and his
> >outcomes. In India and China they are using coal, here in Latin America.
> >Since we do not have coal, we are trying to use firewood (twig), and
Solid
> >Fuel Blocks (SFB).
> >
> >The initial design and the way to burn the kiln are similar, use the
> >calorific energy to start drying the bricks and the initial phase of the
> >green bricks become burnt bricks using the physical law that the hot air
> >goes up.
> >
> >Here in Nicaragua we had to start from cero, not much information we
could
> >received from the internet, and books and pamphlets did not have all the
> >information needed.
> >
> >The VSBK, as we have already said, use coal to burn the bricks. The coal
is
> >placed between the bricks for them to burn. One question we have not
answer
> >yet is how they start the fire with coal.
> >
> >A basic function of this kiln is that it allows the load and unloads of
> >bricks while it is still burning. The bricks are unloaded in the bottom
and
> >loaded in the top. All the bricks are placed one on top of the other in
> >layers of four rows each. The first row you must leave a space to place
the
> >metal beams that will support the rest of the column while you unload the
> >burnt bricks.
> >
> >The interesting thing is that the brick column has to be supported by a
> >metal base (which never should get hot) that moves up and down and has
> >several metal beams that support part of the column while the metal base
> >goes down just to let unload five rows of bricks.
> >
> >The metal base then is lifted up again and reloaded (in the top) with
bricks
> >and charcoal. The metal beams are removed. This is how the VSBK functions
in
> >very few words.
> >
> >What we have tried to adapt here in Nicaragua is the fuel. We are putting
> >instead of charcoal wooden chips between the bricks and we have made a
> >change in the kiln with two places to burn SFB and twigs. They are in two
> >sides of the kiln and the heat is transfer to the brick column helping
the
> >wooden chips to also burn and produces the bricks.
> >
> >We have tried twice now to burn the kiln, with not much success. Mainly
> >because we are using a screw to lift up and down the metal base that
support
> >the brick column. The screw when is unloaded will go up and down but when
> >loaded does not move. We believe there was an error in the design of the
> >bolt threads.
> >
> >The initial phase of the kiln is more or less 18 to 24 hours before the
> >first bricks are burnt, and almost 36 hours before they are out of the
kiln.
> >
> >Is needed to say that reloading the kiln is more difficult than unloading
> >it. The heat and steam we have on the top of the kiln, even with the
chimney
> >makes the loading very difficult, since all the heat is going up, and we
> >have a very hot environment up there.
> >
> >A significant difference between the Chinese version and the one we are
> >trying to produce is that they say in their information that you can
> >retrieve four lines of bricks (150 more or less) every two hours. With
twigs
> >and SFB, we believe is more like four hours.
> >
> >We have plans and photographs we share here with you.
> >
> >The VSBK here is still not working and we believe that we are still
halfway
> >before it can be used commercially. The screw has to be redesigned and we
> >need to burn the kiln for three or four days, moving the screw before
> >getting to conclusions.
> >
> >One thing I could say now. The kiln works, and is environmentally
friendly
> >
> >using twigs and SFB.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Jul 9 10:22:05 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Kilns
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030709162953.02f0b080@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.092205.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Yes, I thought attachments were blocked by the list software -- is this no
longer true?

On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 04:33:07PM +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:
> Stovers,
>
> This message, purporting to come from highly respected A.D.Karve
> contained an attachment which raised my suspicions. Don't open it unless
> Dr. Karve tells you he actually sent it.
>
> Peter (once burnt) Verhaart
>
>
> At 13:25 09/07/03 +0800, you wrote:
>
> >--Boundary_(ID_WN4KYNTgGXQkJ4Kr1iTWBg)
> >Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> >Dear Tom and Paul,
> >I spent the last four days at Phaltan, looking at the charring kilns =
> >installed by ARTI at various sites. The operators in most cases are =
> >unemployed rural youth. After demonstrating the process to them on our =
> >own kiln they were provided wit`

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From dstill at EPUD.NET Wed Jul 9 17:09:42 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Winiarski Rocket Lantern
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.140942.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Still/lantern/lantern.
html
Dear Friends,

Click on the REPP site above to check out a wood fired lantern.
Ron Larson mentioned the Rocket Lantern that I've been working on...Using
the open fire for illumination at night probably adds to inhalation of
pollutants. In San Nicolas, BCS Mexico where I lived, we made a fire almost
every night during the winter so we could see eachother as we talked.
Snakes, scorpions, spiders bite folks at night and it's a lot safer to have
light in places where these kind of accidents occur. It's nice to enjoy the
cool of the evening with a cup of coffee and a good book.

The Rocket Lantern in the following two photos uses metal bug screen as the
chimney. A glass jar can fit over the chimney for protection from wind but
is not necessary in houses without strong drafts. A three inch in diameter
metal chimney can be attached to the bug screen chimney to take emissions
out of the house. The wood is fed into the Rocket insulated combustion
chamber by a self feeding tray on wheels pulled toward the combustion zone
by a weight. I used a little metal toy car to hold up the fuel magazine tray
and reduce friction so that only a small weight is necessary. Sixteen inch
long branches can be used in this lantern which provides light for about 30
to 45 minutes between charges.

There are lots of Rocket Lantern variations on this theme. But this is one
that I like better than most.

All Best,

Dean

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Wed Jul 9 12:30:57 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Kilns
In-Reply-To: <200307091328.h69DSpG25545@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.103057.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Harmon, Piet, et al

I also received this - but it was stopped (quarantined) by my Norton unit.
Today I forwarded a warning to A.D. - but it was quickly returned by my
server - as there was no sender at "adkarve@tm.net.my" (a Myanmar site).
Several questions for persons (Harmon?) on the list expert in viruses:

1. Is there any way to track down the joker who sent this in AD's name?
Could it have come from AD's computer - but show as coming from somewhere
else?

2. Why did something that my Norton stopped (and apparently same for
Piet's) get through our REPP system (same question as Harmon's). (OR - Was
this one that did not make it through - but looked like it did through some
clever by-pass?)

3. What can we do to make sure this does not happen again (assuming it did
go through the REPP system).

4. I didn't keep track of the claimed virus - anyone know what it was
(could help AD or others in clearing it if it indeed did start on his
computer)?

Ron

>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
>Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:22 AM
>To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Re: Kilns
>
>
>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Poster: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
>Subject: Re: Kilns
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------
>
> Yes, I thought attachments were blocked by the list software --
>is this no
>longer true?
>
>
>On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 04:33:07PM +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:
>> Stovers,
>>
>> This message, purporting to come from highly respected A.D.Karve
>> contained an attachment which raised my suspicions. Don't open it unless
>> Dr. Karve tells you he actually sent it.
>>
>> Peter (once burnt) Verhaart
>>
>>
>> At 13:25 09/07/03 +0800, you wrote:
>>
>> >--Boundary_(ID_WN4KYNTgGXQkJ4Kr1iTWBg)
>> >Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>> >Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>> >
>> >Dear Tom and Paul,
>> >I spent the last four days at Phaltan, looking at the charring kilns =
>> >installed by ARTI at various sites. The operators in most cases are =
>> >unemployed rural youth. After demonstrating the process to
>them on our =
>> >own kiln they were provided wit`
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Jul 9 12:47:51 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Kilns
In-Reply-To: <NGBBKDEHILILFNJPHEFIKEPCCPAA.ronallarson@qwest.net>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.114751.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:30:57AM -0600, Ron Larson wrote:
> Harmon, Piet, et al
>
> I also received this - but it was stopped (quarantined) by my Norton unit.
> Today I forwarded a warning to A.D. - but it was quickly returned by my
> server - as there was no sender at "adkarve@tm.net.my" (a Myanmar site).
> Several questions for persons (Harmon?) on the list expert in viruses:
>
> 1. Is there any way to track down the joker who sent this in AD's name?
> Could it have come from AD's computer - but show as coming from somewhere
> else?

Probably not possible to track it down, and it possibly could have come
from AD's machine, if he's caught a virus.

>
> 2. Why did something that my Norton stopped (and apparently same for
> Piet's) get through our REPP system (same question as Harmon's). (OR - Was
> this one that did not make it through - but looked like it did through some
> clever by-pass?)
>
Well, I'm wondering now if it did come thru the list. Wish I'd kept a copy,
but one thing that makes me suspect it didn't was that there was no (STOVES) in
the subject line. But I'm wondering how many people did get it -- if everyone on
the list got a copy that would seem to say that the list did indeed pass it, as
it's unlikely that AD's machine would have all the email addresses. Perhaps the
virus only harvested the addresses of those people who posted recently because
AD had messages from them on his machine -- or, alternately, the virus could be
harvesting the addresses from messages in the archives on the website??
In which case it wouldn't have come from AD's machine at all -- I guess the
question is, did AD actually write the text in that message?

> 3. What can we do to make sure this does not happen again (assuming it did
> go through the REPP system).
>
> 4. I didn't keep track of the claimed virus - anyone know what it was
> (could help AD or others in clearing it if it indeed did start on his
> computer)?
>
>
> Ron
>

> >> >
> >> >Dear Tom and Paul,
> >> >I spent the last four days at Phaltan, looking at the charring kilns =
> >> >installed by ARTI at various sites. The operators in most cases are =
> >> >unemployed rural youth. After demonstrating the process to
> >them on our =
> >> >own kiln they were provided wit`
> >

It would be strange if he actually wrote this and sent it to the list, AND
the virus added it's attachment, AND the list passed it on. Hard to say -- I got
another message a few days ago that seemed to be from the list which definitely
contained a virus but when I hit a "reply to list" to ask why it came from the
list, it puked, since it hadn't come from the list. But no one else complained
about getting that one, so...?

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Wed Jul 9 17:44:03 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: gaseous fuel
In-Reply-To: <000101c345c5$857c5e20$445e41db@adkarvepn2.vsnl.net.in>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.224403.0100.>

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 18:30:22 +0530, A.D. Karve wrote:

>Dear Andrew,
>I did not advocate that the two billion people who are today using
>unprocessed biomass as domestic fuel should be supplied with LPG or natural
>gas.

Nor did I wish to imply you had.

>I only sited the acceptance of LPG by the average Indian housewife as
>an example of how a good technology can overcome ethnic and cultural
>inhibitions if it is sufficiently user friendly.

This I also understand.

I was musing that ideally lpg as a cooking fuel would solve many
health problems associated with open flame devices, un affordable
though it might be.

> You may remember my having
>reported some time ago that I had developed a compact biogas digester, that
>required daily just 1 kg waste starch (seed of various trees, grain damaged
>by rain or by insects, oilcake of nonedible oilseeds, banana rhizomes,
>leftover food etc) to produce about 800 litres of biogas, sufficient to cook
>the food of a family consisting of 5 persons. The biogas plant is so small
>that one can keep it inside the kitchen, but because our present prototype
>is malodorous, we are working on another, which is totally sealed. We should
>be ready with the new model in another month or so. This biogas digester
>costs just Rs. 1500 (US$ 30). It is as user friendly as LPG, and yet much
>cheaper to operate than LPG. Since farmers would always have some quantity
>of waste starchy material with them, we are hoping that this digester would
>be very popular in the rural areas.

I wonder what the shipping cost to UK would be?

I could see this also becoming popular in western cultures where
"disposal" of putrescible household produce is an expensive problem.

I have come across an electrically heated and fanned aerobic composter
for use at the "waste end" of supermarkets used to reduce bulk and
mass going to the dump.

AJH

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Wed Jul 9 17:49:09 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Kilns
In-Reply-To: <20030709164751.GA31392@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.224909.0100.>

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:47:51 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:

>> 2. Why did something that my Norton stopped (and apparently same for
>> Piet's) get through our REPP system (same question as Harmon's). (OR - Was
>> this one that did not make it through - but looked like it did through some
>> clever by-pass?)
>>
> Well, I'm wondering now if it did come thru the list. Wish I'd kept a copy,
>but one thing that makes me suspect it didn't was that there was no (STOVES) in
>the subject line.

It didn't come through the list, I think it was bugbear. This virus
spoofs a from address from 2 addresses in the outlook address book.
The text will be from an e-mail on the machine. All the recipients
were probably also in an outlook address book.

So it's probably somebody who has us all in their address book, rather
than a bot that has harvested addresses from the archives.

AJH

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Thu Jul 10 00:31:49 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Kilns
Message-ID: <THU.10.JUL.2003.003149.0400.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Andrew et. al,

I find no evidence that the message came through the list. If it did it
would be in the list archive at:
http://listserv.repp.org/archives/stoves.html
I find not copy of it there.

Nor did I receive a copy of the message unless I deleted it with the two
dozen or so virus laden messages that my virus softwre detects each day.

It has the earmarks of the recent round of Klez type viruses.
1. AD Karve's address is not correct but is concatenated with his name and
another's domain. This is common with the current flavors of klez.
2. The message is a fragment, as someone noted, that doesn't make sense.

It also does not mean that his machine is infected. It is likely from
someone who is on the list and who has several of the list members'
addresses in their outlook address book.

Regards,

Tom Miles

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:49:09 +0100, Andrew Heggie
<andrew.heggie@DTN.NTL.COM> wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:47:51 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
>>> 2. Why did something that my Norton stopped (and apparently
same for
>>> Piet's) get through our REPP system (same question as Harmon's). (OR -
Was
>>> this one that did not make it through - but looked like it did through
some
>>> clever by-pass?)
>>>
>> Well, I'm wondering now if it did come thru the list. Wish I'd kept a
copy,
>>but one thing that makes me suspect it didn't was that there was no
(STOVES) in
>>the subject line.
>
>It didn't come through the list, I think it was bugbear. This virus
>spoofs a from address from 2 addresses in the outlook address book.
>The text will be from an e-mail on the machine. All the recipients
>were probably also in an outlook address book.
>
>So it's probably somebody who has us all in their address book, rather
>than a bot that has harvested addresses from the archives.
>
>AJH

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Thu Jul 10 09:56:08 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Winiarski Rocket Lantern
Message-ID: <THU.10.JUL.2003.095608.EDT.>

In a message dated 7/9/03 10:48:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dstill@epud.net
writes:

>
>
> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Still/lantern/lantern.
> html
> Dear Friends,
>
> Click on the REPP site above to check out a wood fired lantern.
> Ron Larson mentioned the Rocket Lantern that I've been working on...Using
> the open fire for illumination at night probably adds to inhalation of
> pollutants. In San Nicolas, BCS Mexico where I lived, we made a fire almost
> every night during the winter so we could see eachother as we talked.
> Snakes, scorpions, spiders bite folks at night and it's a lot safer to have
> light in places where these kind of accidents occur. It's nice to enjoy the
> cool of the evening with a cup of coffee and a good book.

DD Dean, this is a wonderful concept, innovative design. Do you feed whole
sticks into this, or do you break them up? How dry does the wood need to be?
What kinds of woods have been tested? Do you use more than one branch? What
diameter?

>
> The Rocket Lantern in the following two photos uses metal bug screen as the
> chimney. A glass jar can fit over the chimney for protection from wind but
> is not necessary in houses without strong drafts. A three inch in diameter
> metal chimney can be attached to the bug screen chimney to take emissions
> out of the house. The wood is fed into the Rocket insulated combustion
> chamber by a self feeding tray on wheels pulled toward the combustion zone
> by a weight. I used a little metal toy car to hold up the fuel magazine tray
> and reduce friction so that only a small weight is necessary. Sixteen inch
> long branches can be used in this lantern which provides light for about 30
> to 45 minutes between charges.

DD I can not help but think that by placing some substance such as oxide of
aluminum or magnesium at the edge of the flame would give off more light
without needing to resort to a mantle. I have long been intrigued by the fact that
when fireworks are dying out, the last thing to stop glowing white is these
oxides. Phosporous oxide in ash does the same thing. I have never worked on
this but would like to do some experiments.

>
> There are lots of Rocket Lantern variations on this theme. But this is one
> that I like better than most.
>
> All Best,
>
> Dean
>
DD Someday soon I hope to build a small mockup of my skid chip burner that
combines principals of the Rocket and Reed Larson stoves. If I am very
successful I will be able to also extract a percentage of the gas for various uses.
Good luck with your projects, I read every stoves letter-eventually.

Daniel Dimiduk

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Thu Jul 10 10:38:19 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Kilns
Message-ID: <THU.10.JUL.2003.103819.EDT.>

In a message dated 7/9/03 12:49:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM writes:

>
> Well, I'm wondering now if it did come thru the list. Wish I'd kept a
> copy,
> but one thing that makes me suspect it didn't was that there was no (STOVES)
> in
> the subject line. But I'm wondering how many people did get it -- if
> everyone on
> the list got a copy that would seem to say that the list did indeed pass it,
> as
> it's unlikely that AD's machine would have all the email addresses. Perhaps
> the
> virus only harvested the addresses of those people who posted recently
> because
> AD had messages from them on his machine -- or, alternately, the virus could
> be
> harvesting the addresses from messages in the archives on the website??
> In which case it wouldn't have come from AD's machine at all -- I guess
> the
> question is, did AD actually write the text in that message?
>
>
> DD For whom it concerns, I have been inactive on the list of late and the
said virus E-mail did not make an appearance on my computer.

Daniel Dimiduk

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Fri Jul 11 07:21:46 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Baking in Herero Land
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.132146.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Stovers

Well here is one for the record books: Werner in Namibia says that in
Herero land people bake their own bread and to do that they put it in a pot
buried in the ground and cover it with hot coals. He reports that they are
now taking to placing a Vesto over the pot and cooking on top as usual,
while the bottom of the fire and the dropping embers heat the top of the pot
and bake the bread.

As we all know...heat descends...

I think that takes the cake(loaf).

Regards
Crispin

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Fri Jul 11 05:35:11 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Biomass vs "LPG" fuel
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.033511.0600.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear all interested in a renewable energy for after oil production peaks:

Kevin's points are well taken to a point. They define the problem, but not
the solutions....

1) The statement

> There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels across
> the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas.
They
> have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made"

needs to be further refined. (Misinformation is worse than noinformation).

LPG only means "liquefied petroleum gas", not liquid fossil fuels. Propane
(C3H8) boils at - 42 C and butane (C4H10) at -1 C, and so are stored and
shipped as liquids at a pressure less than 10 atmospheres in low pressure
vessels.

Methane (CH4) is a permanent gas and requires 200 atmospheres pressure to
store in cylinders (impractical). It is not an LPG.

Naphtha has a boiling point range from 40 to 250 C (approx). Kerosene is "a
mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons, ... having from 10 to 16 carbon atoms per
molecule. It constitutes the fifth fraction in the distillation of
petroleum. The boiling point is 175-325 C.

This information is from my Merck Index, 11th edition and it also contains
information on many other common chemicals. Costs $80 new or 70 used at
Amazon. The cost of NOT knowing these facts greatly exceeds this cost for a
book that will be a lifetime friend. Other books with similar information
are the Chemical Rubber Handbook (I got my first copy when I was 15) or the
"Chemical Engineers Handbook".

2) These chemicals are factory refined, but were made by Mother Nature and
will soon be gone.

3) Coal is another fossil FUEL. It occurs naturally, but is factory sized
and categorized.

4) Most "biomass" is NOT a fuel - it is a widely occurring renewable energy
resource that will outlast coal and oil based fuels.

5) Wood has 1/4 the density of coal and oil fuels, most other biomass
(straw, cobs, ...) is 1/10th the density and so biomass is hard to ship,
store and use. To be a fuel it also needs to be factory processed and given
similar reliability to coal and oil fuels.

6) Processes exist to "densify" biomass to almost the same density as coal
and make it a shippable/storable/useful fuel. Currently sawdust pellets can
be purchased in the larger hardware stores in Europe and the US for pellet
heating stoves at prices per kJ below that of the fossil fuels. This is the
beginning of a competitive biomass fuel. It currently is working in heating
stoves, but we use it in our "WoodGas Stoves" and micropower gasifiers.
~~~~~~~~
I hope that as we phase out oil, more and more of the biomass residues of
the world can be densified to become acceptable fuels. I hope this for the
sake of my grandchildren and yours who will have to find substitute energy
sources in their lifetimes.

Onward to acceptable substitutes for oil...

TOM REED The Biomass Energy Foundation

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

> Dear AD and Rogerio
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you to be argumentative; I am disagreeing with
you
> because I feel the "stove direction" you wish to take is wrong, and not
> likely to accomplish the good you desire. Following are the reasons:
>
> 1: LPG stoves get wide acceptance because they are "better stove systems."
> The reason why LPG stoves systems are "better" is that they have a "better
> and consistent fuel ". Solid fuels can never be as good in some parameter
> areas such as rapidity of ignition and quenching, and uniformity of the
rate
> of burn. There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels across
> the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas.
They
> have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made",
> consistent, uniform and repeatable. Biomass fuels are not like this.
> Indeed, two people with the same stove in the same room cooking the same
> meal at the same time using biomass fuel from the same pile will get
> different results, in terms of rate of cooking, degree of pollution, and
> consumption of fuel.
>
> 2: There is no such thing as "a LPG Stove"; there are hundreds (if not
> thousands) of LPG stoves, each doing a somewhat better job of meeting
their
> "stoving niche requirements." About the only thing they have in common is
> the fact that they burn "factory fuel."
>
> One of the major advantages of biomass fuel is that it can be indigenously
> sourced. One of the major disadvantages of biomass fuel is its
> inconsistency. I feel it is totally impossible to design a "universal
> biomass stove" if for no other reason that biomass fuels are universally
> inconsistent. If someone could design a LPG stove that could burn Bunker C
> and Point Aconi Coal (6% S and 10% ash), then there might be some hope.
:-)
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:07 AM
> Subject: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology
>
>
> I endorse the views of Rogerio. LPG, in spite of its high price, has
found
> universal acceptance in India and the number of users is increasing day by
> day. There were some complaints about the LPG stove not being usful in
> cooking certain ethnic foods, but because of the blue flame, total lack of
> smoke and soot, instantaneous lighting and extinction, and finger-tip
> control of the flame intensity, housewives changed their cooking habits
and
> adopted cooking methods and cookpots that were LPG-compatible.
> This shows, that if the technology is good, it would be accepted by the
> users.
> A.D.Karve
>

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Fri Jul 11 05:40:42 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.034042.0600.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Peter Verhaart and all:

"It is better to light one little candle than scream about the dark."

In my book propane (and butane in warmer climates) comes the closest to
being an ideal fuel. We ship and store it under very modest pressures -
that of a typical water tank, but it is available easily as a gas for use in
stoves, torches, engines, furnaces...

UNFortunately, it is only a small fraction of the production of oil and gas
wells and it is not made synthetically.

~~~~~~~
Methanol is a great liquid fuel to replace gasoline, and can be made from
natural gas, coal or biomass. (I have a gallon that we made from wood chips
in the 1980s at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory).

Dimethyl ether (DME) can be made just as easily and has the same properties
as propane. Either of these fuels can be excellent cooking fuels - when we
decide to move toward renewables.

~~~~~~
Unfortunately most of humanity only begins to look for solutions when it is
almost too late.

Yours truly,

TOM REED BEF

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Verhaart" <pverhaart@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

> At 09:37 08/07/03 +0530, you wrote:
> >I endorse the views of Rogerio. LPG, in spite of its high price, has
> >found universal acceptance in India and the number of users is increasing
> >day by day. There were some complaints about the LPG stove not being
> >usful in cooking certain ethnic foods, but because of the blue flame,
> >total lack of smoke and soot, instantaneous lighting and extinction, and
> >finger-tip control of the flame intensity, housewives changed their
> >cooking habits and adopted cooking methods and cookpots that were
> >LPG-compatible.
> >This shows, that if the technology is good, it would be accepted by the
users.
> >A.D.Karve
>
> So do I, with knobs on.
>
> Peter Verhaart
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Jul 11 10:16:48 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Biomass vs "LPG" fuel
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.111648.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom

> Dear all interested in a renewable energy for after oil production peaks:
>
> Kevin's points are well taken to a point. They define the problem, but
not
> the solutions....

"It is better to light one little candle than scream about the dark." :-)

>
> 1) The statement
>
> > There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels across
> > the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas.
> They
> > have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made"
>
> needs to be further refined. (Misinformation is worse than
noinformation).

What I had in mind was that being "factory fuels", they are inherently more
uniform and consistent than most indigenous fuels, and that these
characteristics make the job of the stove designer very much easier.
"Factory fuels" have a whole set of advantages and disadvantages. Thes solve
some problems wonderfully, but they create problems and have
vulnerabilities.

Fossil fuels (eg, coal and petroleum) are obviously "factory fuels" in the
sense that they are usually controlled and processed by "a big Company from
away." However, wood pellets and holey briquettes and cane trash are also
"factory fuels", in that they are made centrally, with a reasonable degree
of consistency, but by relatively small local companies rather than large
Multi-Nationals. They also make the job of the stove designer much easier.

What does the Mother/Wife do for fuel when her propane tank cannot be filled
because the propane is not available, due to resuorce depletion, Currency
Exchange Controls, transportation blockages, a lack of money, etc? The
longer, and more fossil based, the energy supply chain, the more likely
these difficulties will arise.
>
> LPG only means "liquefied petroleum gas", not liquid fossil fuels.

Of course. Another way of looking at the above fuel grouping is that they
are "Factory Refined Convenience Fuels", in contrast to dung, charcoals, and
woods of varying size and moisture content, which are generally renewable
and indigenously sourced.
.
>
> 2) These chemicals are factory refined, but were made by Mother Nature
and
> will soon be gone.

It is not so much a question of being totally gone, but rather, the prices
can be expected to increase dramatically as their availability decreases.
>
>
> 4) Most "biomass" is NOT a fuel - it is a widely occurring renewable
energy
> resource that will outlast coal and oil based fuels.

??? The Biomass, Stoves, Gas, Dig. Lists seem to think that it is.
>
> 5) Wood has 1/4 the density of coal and oil fuels, most other biomass
> (straw, cobs, ...) is 1/10th the density and so biomass is hard to ship,
> store and use. To be a fuel it also needs to be factory processed and
given
> similar reliability to coal and oil fuels.

Very wrong. Wood that was not factory processed can be used to make fire.
Wood does not have to be processed in a central factory to dry and size it
uniformly.
>
> 6) Processes exist to "densify" biomass to almost the same density as
coal
> and make it a shippable/storable/useful fuel. Currently sawdust pellets
can
> be purchased in the larger hardware stores in Europe and the US for pellet
> heating stoves at prices per kJ below that of the fossil fuels. This is
the
> beginning of a competitive biomass fuel. It currently is working in
heating
> stoves, but we use it in our "WoodGas Stoves" and micropower gasifiers.

This is only part of the story. The wood pellets are used as a disposal
technique for wood factory waste. I would suggest that NONE of the present
"export pellets" are produced from wood harvested for the purpose of
producing densified pellets. Because of distorted Government policies, it is
apparently even cheaper to burn food (corn kernels) in pellet stoves than it
is to buy waste wood pellets.

> ~~~~~~~~
> I hope that as we phase out oil, more and more of the biomass residues of
> the world can be densified to become acceptable fuels. I hope this for
the
> sake of my grandchildren and yours who will have to find substitute energy
> sources in their lifetimes.
>
> Onward to acceptable substitutes for oil...

I feel that this also is a mistake..... it constrains the stove designer to
a "factory fuel" that is beyond the reach of the people the Stove Design and
Improvement effort is trying to help.

So:
1: Are we trying to configure an easily designed stove?
2: Are we trying to configure a stove that is easy for a central
organization to distribute?
3: Are we trying to solve IAQ problems?
4: Are we trying to solve the fossil energy crisis?
5: Are we trying to help people?
6: Others?????

It is not at all a simple matter to unearth and address the relevant
questions.

Best Wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
>
> TOM REED The Biomass Energy Foundation
>
> Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology
>
>
> > Dear AD and Rogerio
> >
> > I'm not disagreeing with you to be argumentative; I am disagreeing with
> you
> > because I feel the "stove direction" you wish to take is wrong, and not
> > likely to accomplish the good you desire. Following are the reasons:
> >

From scdaa at T-ONLINE.DE Fri Jul 11 10:23:19 2003
From: scdaa at T-ONLINE.DE (123)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: new charcoal production system, how to market it ? -HELP,
Chris ADAM
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.162319.0200.>

new charcoal production system, how to market it ? -HELP, Chris ADAM

STOVERS,

Firstly I would like express that I am very exited to find this
newsgroup on stoves recently.
I had worked as a stove designer (Burundi Community Stove, New
PDI-Family Cooker) 10 years ago in East-Africa and had made brake for
the stove matter the last years.

Secondly I would need your advice and help.
I designed and developed a very efficient, cheap and more
environment-friendly wood charcoal retort system for charcoal
production. I call it HRCS (Hybrid Retort Carbonisation System).

1) Most important: It is more environmentally friendly because I recycle
and burn the volatiles. No massy dark smoke leaves the kiln any more
during phase "2" which is the main phase during carbonisation.
2) 100 kg wood comes to about 30 kg of charcoal. (Traditional systems
only produce between 10 and 20 kg). The HRCS is economic because I use
special treated insulated bricks for the kiln construction and because
of the recycled heat from the burnt volatiles. This heat is used for the
carbonisation system.
3) The kiln is a low cost construction, moveable and easy to operate.
(short operating cycle)
- - -
All together a beautiful thing, if you send me your e-mail I will send
you a one page photo sheet (Word Document, 150KB). I can also send you
the file as pfd- if requested. (also available in German or French
language)
scdaa@t-online.de
- --
But now my question, I tried to get organisations interested, I sent a
letter and the photo information sheet by Air Mail to about 50
organisations but hardly nobody answered or even asked for more details
!?
I mailed it to the following organisations or institutions:
* most GTZ (German Cooperation) country offices . no reply
* FAO (a reply, but no follow up)
*UNEP/Nairobi/ Dr. Toepfer (He told me they are not responsible for
project realisations)
* German Forrest Consulting - no reply
* Energy and Environmental Ministries in India, Thailand, Indonesia,
Philippines, Ethiopia, Kenya
* Some NGOs ( EIRENE, Welthungerhilfe, ded, Appropriate Technology
Magazine, gate-publication))
*** The only positive interest cane from the ded in Ghana, (FORUM),
however they got a new responsible person and everything has to start
from the beginning.
- - -

I have no idea what happened, why I can not get responses ? It could be:

*A letter and a photo is just not enough to become someone interested.
* I mentioned that charcoal project had not been not very popular in the
past, the letter is negative in that paragraph.
* People do not believe that this HRCS would be a revolutionary to
charcoal production
* Something else ????

Any idea whom I could contact in addition ?

Thanks

Chris ADAM,

Chris ADAM
Gaisbergstr. 12
81675 MUeNCHEN, G ER M A N Y, Tel. 0049-89-470 87 868, Hy: 0049-175-
528 9624,

or long-term address:
Chris ADAM
Bahnhofstr. 13
82467 GARMISCH-P., G ER M A N Y, Tel.: 0049-8821-2275

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Fri Jul 11 13:34:01 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:30 2004
Subject: Improved Cook Stoves in Peru
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.103401.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

What improved cook stoves programs are active in Peru? Can you provide names of contacts and organizations?

I know only of a Chasqui project in Cuszco and Richard Stanley's Legacy fuel briquettes.

Tom Miles

From tstubb at IHUG.CO.NZ Fri Jul 11 15:56:40 2003
From: tstubb at IHUG.CO.NZ (Thomas Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: Biomass vs "LPG" fuel
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.075640.1200.TSTUBB@IHUG.CO.NZ>

Dear Tom,

Many thanks for this clear statement on the nature of fuels and your concluding
hope which I for one share.

I would, however, re-write your:

4) Most "biomass" is NOT a fuel - it is a widely occurring renewable
energy
resource that will outlast coal and oil based fuels.

as:

4) All "biomass" is a potential fuel and is a widely occurring
renewable energy
resource that will outlast coal and oil based fuels.

I'm not a vegetarian, but we all should be!

To feed ruminants such as sheep and cattle, vast areas of land are devoted to
growing the grass which they eat. In India cows are sacred while in much of
Africa a man's wealth is defined by the number of cattle he has. At the same
time, the poorer people there are short of fuel as we all soon will be!

Because in digesting the grass methane, a 'greenhouse' gas, is generated and
'belched' to atmosphere, much of its energy is lost in that way, while still
more is used by the animals to keep themselves warm and enabe them to walk the
fields and chew the grass.

Hardly any of the photosynthetically produced energy in the grass arrives on our
plates or in our milk and it would clearly be better if cereals, vegetables or
trees were grown instead of grass to provide us with much more renewable energy
than there is in a juicy steak!

(It may amuse you to know that New Zealand farmers are up in arms over a
proposed 'fart' tax (more correctly a 'belch' tax) of a few cents/head of sheep
and cattle to be imposed in accordance with the Kyoto protocol to compensate for
the 'greenhouse' effect of their methane emissions.)

Finally, in:

6) Processes exist to "densify" biomass to almost the same density as
coal
and make it a shippable/storable/useful fuel. .........

you omitted to mention the drying of biomass, e.g. of wood or sawdust, which
needs to be done before it can be pelletised or briquetted.

Typicallly, on an industrial scale between 5 and 10% of the dried biomass needs
to be burnt to provide the drying energy needed, leaving the rest, after
densification, as a "shippable/storable/useful fuel".

Having written the above I then read Kevin's own response to your message in
which he says (snip):

Wood that was not factory processed can be used to make fire.
Wood does not have to be processed in a central factory to dry and
size it
uniformly.

I agree with him there, and that is the simplest way forward in rural areas
while "industrial scale" fuelwood production will be needed to serve urban
areas.

Regards,

Thomas

Tom Reed wrote:

> Dear all interested in a renewable energy for after oil production peaks:
>
> Kevin's points are well taken to a point. They define the problem, but not
> the solutions....
>
> 1) The statement
>
> > There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels across
> > the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas.
> They
> > have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made"
>
> needs to be further refined. (Misinformation is worse than noinformation).
>
> LPG only means "liquefied petroleum gas", not liquid fossil fuels. Propane
> (C3H8) boils at - 42 C and butane (C4H10) at -1 C, and so are stored and
> shipped as liquids at a pressure less than 10 atmospheres in low pressure
> vessels.
>
> Methane (CH4) is a permanent gas and requires 200 atmospheres pressure to
> store in cylinders (impractical). It is not an LPG.
>
> Naphtha has a boiling point range from 40 to 250 C (approx). Kerosene is "a
> mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons, ... having from 10 to 16 carbon atoms per
> molecule. It constitutes the fifth fraction in the distillation of
> petroleum. The boiling point is 175-325 C.
>
> This information is from my Merck Index, 11th edition and it also contains
> information on many other common chemicals. Costs $80 new or 70 used at
> Amazon. The cost of NOT knowing these facts greatly exceeds this cost for a
> book that will be a lifetime friend. Other books with similar information
> are the Chemical Rubber Handbook (I got my first copy when I was 15) or the
> "Chemical Engineers Handbook".
>
> 2) These chemicals are factory refined, but were made by Mother Nature and
> will soon be gone.
>
> 3) Coal is another fossil FUEL. It occurs naturally, but is factory sized
> and categorized.
>
> 4) Most "biomass" is NOT a fuel - it is a widely occurring renewable energy
> resource that will outlast coal and oil based fuels.
>
> 5) Wood has 1/4 the density of coal and oil fuels, most other biomass
> (straw, cobs, ...) is 1/10th the density and so biomass is hard to ship,
> store and use. To be a fuel it also needs to be factory processed and given
> similar reliability to coal and oil fuels.
>
> 6) Processes exist to "densify" biomass to almost the same density as coal
> and make it a shippable/storable/useful fuel. Currently sawdust pellets can
> be purchased in the larger hardware stores in Europe and the US for pellet
> heating stoves at prices per kJ below that of the fossil fuels. This is the
> beginning of a competitive biomass fuel. It currently is working in heating
> stoves, but we use it in our "WoodGas Stoves" and micropower gasifiers.
> ~~~~~~~~
> I hope that as we phase out oil, more and more of the biomass residues of
> the world can be densified to become acceptable fuels. I hope this for the
> sake of my grandchildren and yours who will have to find substitute energy
> sources in their lifetimes.
>
> Onward to acceptable substitutes for oil...
>
> TOM REED The Biomass Energy Foundation
>
> Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology
>
> > Dear AD and Rogerio
> >
> > I'm not disagreeing with you to be argumentative; I am disagreeing with
> you
> > because I feel the "stove direction" you wish to take is wrong, and not
> > likely to accomplish the good you desire. Following are the reasons:
> >
> > 1: LPG stoves get wide acceptance because they are "better stove systems."
> > The reason why LPG stoves systems are "better" is that they have a "better
> > and consistent fuel ". Solid fuels can never be as good in some parameter
> > areas such as rapidity of ignition and quenching, and uniformity of the
> rate
> > of burn. There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels across
> > the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas.
> They
> > have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made",
> > consistent, uniform and repeatable. Biomass fuels are not like this.
> > Indeed, two people with the same stove in the same room cooking the same
> > meal at the same time using biomass fuel from the same pile will get
> > different results, in terms of rate of cooking, degree of pollution, and
> > consumption of fuel.
> >
> > 2: There is no such thing as "a LPG Stove"; there are hundreds (if not
> > thousands) of LPG stoves, each doing a somewhat better job of meeting
> their
> > "stoving niche requirements." About the only thing they have in common is
> > the fact that they burn "factory fuel."
> >
> > One of the major advantages of biomass fuel is that it can be indigenously
> > sourced. One of the major disadvantages of biomass fuel is its
> > inconsistency. I feel it is totally impossible to design a "universal
> > biomass stove" if for no other reason that biomass fuels are universally
> > inconsistent. If someone could design a LPG stove that could burn Bunker C
> > and Point Aconi Coal (6% S and 10% ash), then there might be some hope.
> :-)
> >
> > Best Wishes,
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> > To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:07 AM
> > Subject: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology
> >
> >
> > I endorse the views of Rogerio. LPG, in spite of its high price, has
> found
> > universal acceptance in India and the number of users is increasing day by
> > day. There were some complaints about the LPG stove not being usful in
> > cooking certain ethnic foods, but because of the blue flame, total lack of
> > smoke and soot, instantaneous lighting and extinction, and finger-tip
> > control of the flame intensity, housewives changed their cooking habits
> and
> > adopted cooking methods and cookpots that were LPG-compatible.
> > This shows, that if the technology is good, it would be accepted by the
> > users.
> > A.D.Karve
> >

From tstubb at IHUG.CO.NZ Fri Jul 11 15:56:59 2003
From: tstubb at IHUG.CO.NZ (Thomas Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: new charcoal production system, how to market it ? -HELP,
Chris ADAM
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.075659.1200.TSTUBB@IHUG.CO.NZ>

Dear Adam,

Please send me the 'photos and design and process descriptions of your HRCS
(Hybrid Retort Carbonisation System) which I may be able to help you to
market.

Wenn es fuer Sie leichter ist, koennen Sie die Beschreibungen in Deutsch
senden.

Mit freundlichem GruS,

Thomas

123 wrote:

> new charcoal production system, how to market it ? -HELP, Chris ADAM
>
> STOVERS,
>
> Firstly I would like express that I am very exited to find this
> newsgroup on stoves recently.
> I had worked as a stove designer (Burundi Community Stove, New
> PDI-Family Cooker) 10 years ago in East-Africa and had made brake for
> the stove matter the last years.
>
> Secondly I would need your advice and help.
> I designed and developed a very efficient, cheap and more
> environment-friendly wood charcoal retort system for charcoal
> production. I call it HRCS (Hybrid Retort Carbonisation System).
>
> 1) Most important: It is more environmentally friendly because I recycle
> and burn the volatiles. No massy dark smoke leaves the kiln any more
> during phase "2" which is the main phase during carbonisation.
> 2) 100 kg wood comes to about 30 kg of charcoal. (Traditional systems
> only produce between 10 and 20 kg). The HRCS is economic because I use
> special treated insulated bricks for the kiln construction and because
> of the recycled heat from the burnt volatiles. This heat is used for the
> carbonisation system.
> 3) The kiln is a low cost construction, moveable and easy to operate.
> (short operating cycle)
> - - -
> All together a beautiful thing, if you send me your e-mail I will send
> you a one page photo sheet (Word Document, 150KB). I can also send you
> the file as pfd- if requested. (also available in German or French
> language)
> scdaa@t-online.de
> - --
> But now my question, I tried to get organisations interested, I sent a
> letter and the photo information sheet by Air Mail to about 50
> organisations but hardly nobody answered or even asked for more details
> !?
> I mailed it to the following organisations or institutions:
> * most GTZ (German Cooperation) country offices . no reply
> * FAO (a reply, but no follow up)
> *UNEP/Nairobi/ Dr. Toepfer (He told me they are not responsible for
> project realisations)
> * German Forrest Consulting - no reply
> * Energy and Environmental Ministries in India, Thailand, Indonesia,
> Philippines, Ethiopia, Kenya
> * Some NGOs ( EIRENE, Welthungerhilfe, ded, Appropriate Technology
> Magazine, gate-publication))
> *** The only positive interest cane from the ded in Ghana, (FORUM),
> however they got a new responsible person and everything has to start
> from the beginning.
> - - -
>
> I have no idea what happened, why I can not get responses ? It could be:
>
> *A letter and a photo is just not enough to become someone interested.
> * I mentioned that charcoal project had not been not very popular in the
> past, the letter is negative in that paragraph.
> * People do not believe that this HRCS would be a revolutionary to
> charcoal production
> * Something else ????
>
> Any idea whom I could contact in addition ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris ADAM,
>
> --
>
> Chris ADAM
> Gaisbergstr. 12
> 81675 MUeNCHEN, G ER M A N Y, Tel. 0049-89-470 87 868, Hy: 0049-175-
> 528 9624,
>
> or long-term address:
> Chris ADAM
> Bahnhofstr. 13
> 82467 GARMISCH-P., G ER M A N Y, Tel.: 0049-8821-2275

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Jul 11 16:55:23 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: [GASL] Biomass vs "LPG" fuel
In-Reply-To: <006201c347b7$334a23f0$129a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.155523.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:16:48AM -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >
> > 6) Processes exist to "densify" biomass to almost the same density as
> coal
> > and make it a shippable/storable/useful fuel. Currently sawdust pellets
> can
> > be purchased in the larger hardware stores in Europe and the US for pellet
> > heating stoves at prices per kJ below that of the fossil fuels. This is
> the
> > beginning of a competitive biomass fuel. It currently is working in
> heating
> > stoves, but we use it in our "WoodGas Stoves" and micropower gasifiers.
>
> This is only part of the story. The wood pellets are used as a disposal
> technique for wood factory waste. I would suggest that NONE of the present
> "export pellets" are produced from wood harvested for the purpose of
> producing densified pellets. Because of distorted Government policies, it is
> apparently even cheaper to burn food (corn kernels) in pellet stoves than it
> is to buy waste wood pellets.

The currently commercially produced wood pellets have several problems as
far as sustainability is concerned: They require a lot of fossil fuels to first
transport the sawdust to the pellet mill, then a lot of electricity to densify
they, and, as Thomas pointed out, also a lot of energy to dry the sawdust first,
and then finally, more fossil fuel to transport to the markets.
I still think we need to develop a feasible method of biomass densification
for home use or village level use, much like the common wood splitter seen all
over North America. Charcoal might be the answer some places, but pellets or
briquettes of densified biomass seem like a much better fuel, especially for
heating.

Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Jul 11 16:58:07 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
In-Reply-To: <014701c34790$7f12d830$b5affd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.155807.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 03:40:42AM -0600, Tom Reed wrote:
> Dear Peter Verhaart and all:
>
> "It is better to light one little candle than scream about the dark."
>
> In my book propane (and butane in warmer climates) comes the closest to
> being an ideal fuel. We ship and store it under very modest pressures -
> that of a typical water tank, but it is available easily as a gas for use in
> stoves, torches, engines, furnaces...
>
> UNFortunately, it is only a small fraction of the production of oil and gas
> wells and it is not made synthetically.
>

But it can be made from carbohydrates, at least according to www.virent.com

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Jul 11 12:37:16 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: Baking in Herero Land
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.103716.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

The traditional manner of baking bread here in Belize -- in the villages --
has been to use a pot -- with a piece of sheet metal placed on top. This
metal preferably from a tambo -- or steel drum.

The pot fits into a small enclosure with white lime (marl) walls -- the
sheet of metal laid on top of all -- and coconut husks ignited and placed
open face down on the sheet of metal.

This makes a very effective oven -- and uses a biomass waste by-product.

The coconut husk is quite an "insulator" -- so laid in this manner most all
heat is directed downwards.

Coconut husk slowly combusts/pyrolyzes to charcoal which falls down on the
steel plate to burn slowly there.

I wonder people if sometimes we do not get obsessed with re-inventing wheels??

Or is it all about getting some good "grant" money???

Personally -- I like bread cooked in this manner much better than bread
cooked in conventional ovens -- the taste folks!!

Peter

At 01:21 PM 7/11/2003 +0200, Crispin wrote:
>Dear Stovers
>
>Well here is one for the record books: Werner in Namibia says that in
>Herero land people bake their own bread and to do that they put it in a pot
>buried in the ground and cover it with hot coals. He reports that they are
>now taking to placing a Vesto over the pot and cooking on top as usual,
>while the bottom of the fire and the dropping embers heat the top of the pot
>and bake the bread.
>
>As we all know...heat descends...
>
>I think that takes the cake(loaf).
>
>Regards
>Crispin
>

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Fri Jul 11 19:27:41 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: new charcoal production system, how to market it ? -HELP,
Chris ADAM
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.192741.0400.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Chris,

If you send me ( tmiles@trmiles.com ) a word copy of the photo sheet I'll
put it on the stoves site in HTML and pdf format.

Thanks

Tom Miles

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Fri Jul 11 23:08:43 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: new charcoal production system, how to market it ? -HELP,
Chris ADAM
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.083843.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Marketing of any new technology is difficult. We (i.e. Appropriate Rural
Technology Institute, Pune, India) developed a system of charcoal making,
very similar to what you describe. Our system was primarily developed to
convert dry sugarcane leaves into charcoal, but it can be used for
practically any biomass. Recently we tested it on bamboo and found that the
charcoal yield was almost 44% of the starting weight of bamboo. We
suspected that bamboo charcoal might have a very high ash content, but were
surprised to find that it had only 9% ash. We too encountered great
difficulty in marketing our charcoaling system, and therefore we started to
commercialise it ourselves. We designed a cookstove that uses our char
briquettes. These stoves were sold to potential users at a very low price.
Once a family has one of our stoves, it became a permanent customer of our
char briquettes. Fortunately our state government banned the production of
charcoal from wood at about the same time, so that there was a shortage of
charcoal in the state and the Central Government slashed the subsidy on
kerosene, so that its price almost quadrupled. Our sugarcane-leaf
char-briquette came on the market just in time to provide users with a cheap
and cleanly burning fuel. We were hoping that a lot of entrepreneurs would
come forward to use our charring kilns and start this as a business. But so
far we are the only ones producing and selling char briquettes made from
light biomass on a commercial scale. But once people see that we are earning
money with our process, they may take this up as a business.
As far as international aid agencies are concerned, we got the Ashden Award
from Ashden Trust, London, for this development and now we are propagating
this system of charcoaling and our charcoal burning cooker-cum-stove through
a project funded by the Shell Foundation, London. I am quite sure that GTZ
or Brot fuer die Welt would finance a project aimed at popularising this
system in any of the countries in which they are working. As far as the
UNDP, FAO and other UN bodies are concerned, they generally work with
governments of different countries. If a query were to come to them from a
particular government for a particular process, they may recommend the name
of a consultant having expertise in that particular subject. For instance,
in 1990, Iran wanted a consultant in a project aimed at making crystalline
sugar from sweet sorghum. The real expertise in this field lies with the
United States, but US experts were not acceptable at that time to the
Iranians, and therefore I got the assignment. If the charcoaling
technology is required by any of the member nations of U.N. the concerned
body may approach you (or me), but not otherwise.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute
Pune, India.

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Sat Jul 12 08:26:56 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: Biomass vs "LPG" fuel
In-Reply-To: <006201c347b7$334a23f0$129a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.132656.0100.>

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:16:48 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

>> Tom Reed 2) These chemicals are factory refined, but were made by Mother Nature and
>> will soon be gone.

>It is not so much a question of being totally gone, but rather, the prices can be
> expected to increase dramatically as their availability decreases.

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Jul 12 13:36:16 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: new charcoal production system, how to market it ? -HELP,
Chris ADAM
In-Reply-To: <200307111342.h6BDgvG31859@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.113616.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Chris - Yesterday you said:

RWL: I see that tom Miles has offered to put your material on our web
site - but you should also send something on your earlier stove work.
>
>Secondly I would need your advice and help.
>I designed and developed a very efficient, cheap and more
>environment-friendly wood charcoal retort system for charcoal
>production. I call it HRCS (Hybrid Retort Carbonisation System).
>
>1) Most important: It is more environmentally friendly because I recycle
>and burn the volatiles. No massy dark smoke leaves the kiln any more
>during phase "2" which is the main phase during carbonisation.
>2) 100 kg wood comes to about 30 kg of charcoal. (Traditional systems
>only produce between 10 and 20 kg). The HRCS is economic because I use
>special treated insulated bricks for the kiln construction and because
>of the recycled heat from the burnt volatiles. This heat is used for the
>carbonisation system.
>3) The kiln is a low cost construction, moveable and easy to operate.
>(short operating cycle)

RWL: I would like to encourage you to say more about your approach through
this list. This could be the best way to help commercialize. As soon as
you have sent the pdf material to Tom, I think you should add more here to
what you send him. I am particularly interested in your term "recycle". Is
there any way that you can also use the considerable waste heat - or use
this as the front end of an existing strictly thermal process that is
already using biomass?
It was good to see responses also from AD Karve and Thomas Stubbing. There
are quite a few others of us on this list trying to do away with the very
bad traditional methods of making charcoal.
It would be helpful if you could say a bit more about the costs and
economics of your approach. That is probably the main driver now for what
you want to do.
As to why commercialization of activities such as yours go slowly - my view
is that it is mostly a failure to have some insurance on making a change.
Your clientele will mostly have few funds to speculate with - and
necessarily will have a very discount rate. -- If you don't have a payback
of a few months - you better be willing to offer a money-back guarantee - at
least in the early stages. AD has also indicated that you may want to
consider situations where you are willing to buy back the charcoal at some
agreed-upon price. Sounds like India is a good place to start up such a
business. (Maybe elsewhere than Maharashtra state.)
Good to have you on "stoves".

Ron

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Jul 12 14:38:03 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
In-Reply-To: <200307112004.h6BK4FG05192@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.123803.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Harmon and stovers:

Yesterday , you wrote in to mention the name of a start-up company when in
replying to Tom Reed about propane production, you said:
>
> But it can be made from carbohydrates, at least according to
www.virent.com

RWL: This is to follow your thread a little further, because I have been
following that company a bit as well in some volunteer work for ASES
(American Solar Energy Society) where I am preparing a report on hydrogen
production. People associated with this small company were even in
"Science" magazine in the last few weeks on the subject of low cost
catalysts (to replace the present high cost favorite - platinum.

Several additional points:
1) Hydrogen is potentially as ideal a home cooking fuel as we can find -
given that only water appears as the "waste product". We could forget all
our recent dialog on chimneys if this was the norm. The subject of H2 has
taken a big leap forward in the last year - and it just might spill over
into stoves.
2) "Science" also had a recent letter on hydrogen being potentially quite
unsafe. I am not sure where to come out on that, as proponents make the
opposite claim. If we ever get to hydrogen as a rural cooking fuel, safety
should be a concern (as it should be for methane or any other fuel -
including wood and charcoal)
3) This company could be one to watch for rural hydrogen production - much
as AD is already working with "bugs" to make methane from scrap/waste
"foodstocks". They require moderate temperatures - so harder than what AD
is doing at room temperature.
4) There are also quite a few researchers around the world doing what AD is
doing with methane but to produce H2 rather than CH4 - some directly from
sunlight - some from waste feed stocks. Nobody close to commercialization
yet - and that includes "Virent". Watch for the H2 work of Craig Venter -
the person in the private sector given most credit for the recent successful
genome mapping project (he is developing artificial H2-producing "bugs").
5) Noone has recently mentioned the use of ethanol as a sustainable cooking
fuel. Probably controversial as it can be misused - but there are plenty of
existing ethanol cookstoves out there (and we have talked on this list about
converting to a "sterno" (solid) type product at low cost, where spare
feedstock (bagasse) is cheap. There is a growing use of ethanol in the US
for the automotive gasoline-additive market - and researchers say that they
can make this a net energy positive technology.
6) In years past, we have had experts on this list (Bengt Ebbeson,
Electrolux Corporation, Switzerland, Harry Stokes, the Stokes Consulting
Group, USA) saying that methanol should be the preferred approach for
cooking - mainly because there is so much stranded methane around the world
that could be cheaply converted to methanol and then transported by boat to
anywhere. We need a competitive local means of producing the same. I'd
like to hear frm Bengt and Harry on their corporate progress.
7) I recognize that much of the above ramble is a long way off (not AD's) -
but this is to encourage more work on all clean, renewable sources of
cooking fuels - and to keep the candidate list long until we have found the
best (cheapest, cleanest - which will probably be different in different
parts of the world).

Ron

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Jul 12 15:26:10 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.162610.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

...del...
>
> Several additional points:
> 1) Hydrogen is potentially as ideal a home cooking fuel as we can
find -
> given that only water appears as the "waste product". We could forget all
> our recent dialog on chimneys if this was the norm.

Ron, the advantage of Hydrogen is that it is a "uniform" product, and that a
stove or burner system can be designed to burn it effectively. Note that
Hydrogen is NOT a fuel any more than a battery is a fuel.... hydrogen is an
"energy storage commodity".

The subject of H2 has
> taken a big leap forward in the last year - and it just might spill over
> into stoves.

I would suggest that Hydrogen Stoves are a long way into the future. How
much does it cost to buy or make hydrogen, inn terms of $ per million BTU?

> 2) "Science" also had a recent letter on hydrogen being
potentially quite
> unsafe. I am not sure where to come out on that, as proponents make the
> opposite claim. If we ever get to hydrogen as a rural cooking fuel,
safety
> should be a concern (as it should be for methane or any other fuel -
> including wood and charcoal)

Would Hydrogen be any more or less dangerous than Natural Gas or LPG gases?

> 3) This company could be one to watch for rural hydrogen
production - much
> as AD is already working with "bugs" to make methane from scrap/waste
> "foodstocks". They require moderate temperatures - so harder than what AD
> is doing at room temperature.

Isn't this a bit of overkill for a stove? What are likely to be the
comparative economics of setting up to produce hydrogen, versus burning its
raw material source directly?

> 4) There are also quite a few researchers around the world doing
what AD is
> doing with methane but to produce H2 rather than CH4 - some directly from
> sunlight - some from waste feed stocks. Nobody close to commercialization
> yet - and that includes "Virent". Watch for the H2 work of Craig Venter -
> the person in the private sector given most credit for the recent
successful
> genome mapping project (he is developing artificial H2-producing "bugs").

Given that success of the Hydrogen Conversion Process could be a long way in
the future, and that it will likely yield a fuel gas that is relatively
costly, if it is successful, is not the best way to proceed now to continue
with solid fuels?

> 5) Noone has recently mentioned the use of ethanol as a
sustainable cooking
> fuel. Probably controversial as it can be misused - but there are plenty
of
> existing ethanol cookstoves out there (and we have talked on this list
about
> converting to a "sterno" (solid) type product at low cost, where spare
> feedstock (bagasse) is cheap. There is a growing use of ethanol in the US
> for the automotive gasoline-additive market - and researchers say that
they
> can make this a net energy positive technology.

Ethanol is a "Factory Fuel." It requires a "central production facility",
but in contrast to petroleum based products, there is a potential to have
"local ethanol factories," operating on indigenous fuels. Would this be
acceptable to the people for whom the stoves are intended?

> 6) In years past, we have had experts on this list (Bengt
Ebbeson,
> Electrolux Corporation, Switzerland, Harry Stokes, the Stokes Consulting
> Group, USA) saying that methanol should be the preferred approach for
> cooking - mainly because there is so much stranded methane around the
world
> that could be cheaply converted to methanol and then transported by boat
to
> anywhere. We need a competitive local means of producing the same. I'd
> like to hear frm Bengt and Harry on their corporate progress.

Is it the wish or the purpose of the Stoves List to focus on the development
of stoves requiring such a "Factory Fuel?"

> 7) I recognize that much of the above ramble is a long way off
(not AD's) -
> but this is to encourage more work on all clean, renewable sources of
> cooking fuels - and to keep the candidate list long until we have found
the
> best (cheapest, cleanest - which will probably be different in different
> parts of the world).

Stranded Natural Gas and Methanol are not renewable. If the renewable energy
of choice is to come from the "direct burning of biomass", then would it be
possible to start by defining the biomass fuels and their specifications so
that the Stove Designer would at least have a starting point?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

>
> Ron

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Sat Jul 12 10:02:29 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: TOM REED'S ADDRESS CHANGE
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.080229.0600.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear All:

Greetings: My address has been changed from tombreed@attbi.com to
tombreed@comcast.net. Please change my address in your book and send me a
return note with your current address if you wish to stay in my address book
or be removed.

Yours truly, Tom REED

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@comcast.net ; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Jul 12 21:19:16 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
In-Reply-To: <006901c348ab$b3f4fad0$ee9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.191916.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Kevin (cc stoves):

Today you (all that with a >)said:

1.
>Ron, the advantage of Hydrogen is that it is a "uniform" product,
>and that a
>stove or burner system can be designed to burn it effectively. Note that
>Hydrogen is NOT a fuel any more than a battery is a fuel....
>hydrogen is an
>"energy storage commodity".

RWL: a. Agree with your first point, but still believe that a major
advantage is what happens after combustion - (only) water is nice to then
have around in the kitchen.
b. Have to disagree on whether H2 is a fuel.
1. Certainly fits what my dictionary says a fuel is.
2. is the optimum input to a "fuel cell"
3. I did not use the term "energy source", which is what we can probably
both agree H2 is not. I believe we can both agree it is a carrier - but you
need to explain to me why H2 cannot be both a carrier and a fuel.
4. Below in our discussion point #4, you yourself call H2 a fuel.
5. I don't see much relationship between H2 and a battery except both
store energy. I am not about to call a battery a fuel.
6. H2 is also the most abundant element on the planet - it is more than an
"energy storage commodity" - but I agree I am liking it because it does have
that storage feature.

2.
>I would suggest that Hydrogen Stoves are a long way into the future. How
>much does it cost to buy or make hydrogen, inn terms of $ per million BTU?

RWL: a. Agree with your first point and thought I had said the same.
b. The cheapest Renewable source today is from wind. Ignoring the cost
of electolysis, electricity at 3.6 c/kWh is $10/GJ (about $10 /MMBtu).
(using 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ) Of course I can't ignore the electrolyzer - but it
is a smaller part of the total and costs are projected to come down
significantly - and some RE processes don't require one.
Another unit of costing is by weight - with a common goal given as $2/kg.
Using a higher heating value of .141 GJ/kg (see Tom Reed's web site), this
comes out to about $14/GJ.
To such a number should be added comparable numbers for storage and
transport - depending on distance.
I am guessing that many rural folk are paying (when unsubsidized) prices
greater than this today - and those prices are soon going higher.
Not really terribly attractive today - but if one can postulate/hope for
PV and future direct photon conversion systems at the village level
eventually giving electricity in the 3.6 cent range, then I think these
costs would be comparable to the imported fossil alternatives - especially
if you consider health impacts. Note if you are fortunate enough to be
cooking when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, you would use
electricity directly for cooking. But electricity is not an absolute need.
Biomass conversion options have the same general numbers - but are closer
today.
Solar thermal conversion is interesting because the efficiency of
conversion from photons to H2 can exceed 50% with thermo-chemical process
possible at the high temperatures reachable with the concentrating ST
approach. Takes up half the land area as for (today's) PV. Might find that
one moves a chemical around (zinc plus water gives zinc oxide plus
hydrogen - and the zinc oxide can be recycled into zinc at this suggested
high efficiency).
If you want to go way out - think nanotechnology. Proven at much lower
frequencies to be possible to convert an incoming wave to dc at 85%
effciency.
>

3.
>Would Hydrogen be any more or less dangerous than Natural Gas or LPG gases?

a. The H2 proponents say less so - the main reason being that H2 is so
light that it dissipates quickly. Also flame is essentially colorless - so
radiation effects are much diminished. Test photos I have seen of simulated
car crashes seem to bear this out when comparing to gasoline. Extensive use
by NASA. About 1% of US energy is in the form of H2 with 1000s of miles of
pipelines in place in the US - and I don't remember much concern from
accidents.
b. Opposite view is based on extremely low energy needed to ignite, wide
range of flammability conditions, etc. One interesting fact is that the
combustion products occupy less space, so one needs to think about
implosions.
c. I disqualify myself as an expert on this topic.

>
>>
3.
>Isn't this a bit of overkill for a stove? What are likely to be the
>comparative economics of setting up to produce hydrogen, versus
>burning its
>raw material source directly?

RWL: a. Kevin's "this" above refers to the process used by the company
Harmon brought to our attention and which I was following up after going to
their web site (note this company is very much in the start-up phase).
Harmon was kindly reporting that the company "Virent" was claiming they
could produce propane from (wet, starchy) input biomass like that being used
successfully now by AD - for household CH4, just going beyond Tom Reed's
admonition yesterday that this sort of product ".. is not made
synthetically." My (probably misguided) "contribution" was only to note
that the same new small company is receiving some notoriety for claiming the
same about H2. Then I got carried away - my apologies to all.
b. The only reason for bringing in H2 or any of these more centralized
fuels is that we do not have proof yet that we can cook cleanly enough with
the solid fuels. I certainly hope we can provide that proof. In that
regard, I strongly urge all of us to look closely at what AD is doing at low
cost with CH4. There is no fundamental reason that AD's system couldn't
eventually work just as well (meaning cheap) by producing H2. That work is
just beginning. Personally I would rather work with H2 than CH4 - since I
know I won't have to worry about CO poisoning. Also - with H2, I can start
thinking (way off) as an input to tiny fuel cells that we will probably see
replacing some batteries - even in the next few years.
c. Some of this discussion is based on Kirk Smith's observation in
"Science" a few months ago that these commmercial fossil fuels might well be
justified for subsidy by the wealthy nations - both for humanitarian and for
global warming reasons. I have been trying to concentrate only on those
fuels that could be produced locally from renewable resources. That is why
I liked Harmon's addition.
d. Think I answered some of the economics issues above. We have heard on
this list some very attractive numbers for ethanol based fuels. AD is
claiming good economics for his locally produced CH4. But to keep prices
low, one needs to keep the transportation distance down (meaning only the
renewable options). And all of the fossil fuels will have associated hidden
balance of payments charges, national security concerns, employment issues,
etc. in most developing countries.
e. I have been emphasizing liquid and gaseous options so far, but I am
certainly hopeful that my 7-year push for charcoal-making stoves will
eventually prove a winner. Just wanting to mention all the other options.
f. One more that needs mentioning is the solar cooker. Some storage
capability has been proposed with hot oils. Also a "solar pond" can allow
cooking 24-7 at temperatures right about boiling.
g. Not wrong for us to concentrate on solid fuels - but every once in a
while we should discuss the alternatives.

4)
>Given that success of the Hydrogen Conversion Process could be a
>long way in
>the future, and that it will likely yield a fuel gas that is relatively
>costly, if it is successful, is not the best way to proceed now to continue
>with solid fuels?

RWL: Possibly so - but no reason to not do both (and I especially want to
keep coming back to what AD has discovered this past year on CH4). There are
lots of new approaches waiting to be developed.
If the world put as much money into stove R&D as into the cost of one
military aircraft this worldwide indoor health problem would have been
solved long ago. Our (global, but mostly US) problem is lack of the right
priorities.
>
5.
>Ethanol is a "Factory Fuel." It requires a "central production facility",
>but in contrast to petroleum based products, there is a potential to have
>"local ethanol factories," operating on indigenous fuels. Would this be
>acceptable to the people for whom the stoves are intended?

RWL: There are certainly some who say so. Don't historians say that the
making of ethanol is the world's second oldest profession? Economies of
scale and the costs of transportation will dictate the right scale for
ethanol - or any of several other options (including CH4, H2, etc). We
don't move in an ethanol or other "centralized" (but still renewable) manner
because we (the world) don't appreciate the (mostly health) costs of not
doing so. Centralization might lead to lower costs - but also it might not.
Getting better processes and better "bugs" could help a lot.
>
6)
>Is it the wish or the purpose of the Stoves List to focus on the
>development
>of stoves requiring such a "Factory Fuel?"
>
RWL: a. Probably not - but part of my reason for spending time on the
subject is to tell potential funders that R&D dollars are needed. Our most
knowledgeable spokesperson on the health impacts of stoves (Kirk) has
concluded that factory fuels are the way to go. Because I have been
convinced on the health impacts, I could agree if I thought any big country
would start chipping in. But since that is unlikely , we on this list have
to keep banging awy on getting cleaner stoves (not just cheaper and more
efficient). Unfortunately, I claim we haven't got one single lab anywhere
in the world equipped to do this - even if we had the money to conduct the
testing.
b. AD has proven that these fuels don't have to be considered "factory".

7)
>Stranded Natural Gas and Methanol are not renewable. If the
>renewable energy
>of choice is to come from the "direct burning of biomass", then would it be
>possible to start by defining the biomass fuels and their specifications so
>that the Stove Designer would at least have a starting point?
>
RWL: a. Have to disagree with first sentence - both fuels (equating
"natural gas" to CH4) can be renewable. I was of course not claiming that
stranded natural gas was renewable - only that it is cheap - and that moving
CH4 in the form of methanol might well happen in the future. Of course,
some methanol is already being commercially produced from biomass - not a
tough trick at all.
b. Not sure I am ready to agree with your second sentence "if". There are
some other options that I would like to hear more about. We have people on
this list who swear by seed oils, which have not been mentioned for awhile.
Probably can be made very clean burning. Might be able to say the same about
turpentine - or some other similar wood-based, but esily collected "fuel". I
remember somewhere hearing about latex-based "saps" from plants such as
milkweed as having a potentially low cost when grown commercially. Who
knows what else is lurking out there to surprise us all.
c. But taking your "if" further, this ("definition") is still too big a
task for this response - or probably even the rest of the year if all list
members get involved. We have lots of experts on this list pushing one or
another solid fuel and I am too long already to get further into that topic.
I can agree that more work is needed along these lines - as exemplified by
some of the discussion last week just on moisture content. For another
example, there is absolutely no agreement yet on the value of holes in
briquettes. Long way to go!! I encourage you to suggest to us a path for
classifying just the solid fuels. This is not a bad question.

Whew! Sorry for the verbosity.

Ron

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Jul 12 22:39:57 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
In-Reply-To: <001601c3486e$d28b1ac0$b5affd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.203957.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Tom (cc "stoves")

You said today:

1.
>I guess Ron Larson is fan of hydrogen, since "only water appears as the
>"waste product". (Spoken like a member of the animal kingdom, since
>vegetables require CO2 to grow).

RWL - Let me clarify. I am terribly afraid we in the US are heading fast
down a Bush administration plan for producing H2 mainly from coal and
nuclear (afer we exhaust natural gas). RE is coming in as a poor fourth -
the way I read the tea leaves. I am much more interested in promoting RE
sources than promoting H2. The Bush plan is based almost entirely on
needing to find an alternative to oil (not on the environmental aspects of
the issue) - but I think is way off on the need for urgency even there. I
am now of the opinion that we probably need to return to our (US) earlier
emphasis on electric vehicles if we want to achieve low cost as well as low
emissions.

2.
>Hydrogen could be a great fuel, provided:
>
>Not more CO2 is generated elsewhere or energy wasted elsewhere when it is
>made
>
>It can be safely stored and shipped
>
>So far all schemes I have seen don't meet this criterion.

RWL: You have four criteria above. I suggest that the dozens of RE
options can all do better on all four measures than either coal or nuclear.
But the main argument will be over costs - and the jury is still out on that
(although clear to me - even for natural gas.)
There is no proof that CO2 from coal can be adequately sequestered - at any
price. But there is also considerable dispute on the CO2-disposal
incemental cost numbers being discussed.
Nuclear has especially the waste disposal issue to overcome - but terrorist
concerns look to me like they will kill that option - if we stick with
private sector production (and don't be surprised by this administration
proposing huge new Government-owned nuclear "parks").
I will have to rest on the RE answers given in the immediately preceding
message replying to Kevin. Afraid I have to ask you to explain why wind or
PV or STE is not an answer on the CO2 and waste questions - and why local
electrolysis doesn't answer the issue of storage and shipping. (same for
residential PV down the road). Biomass appears to be able to supply in a
cost effective fashion a good part of the need as well - but I probably
won't convince you on storage and shipping costs.
There is clearly a lot to do on the storage topic - but I read experts
saying that will be solved as well (nanotubes?).

>3.
>As for me, I like methanol as an ideal liquid fuel or dimethyl ether as an
>ideal gaseous fuel.

RWL: The rationale for H2 is all based on the purported high efficiency
properties of the fuel cell. Methanol has been proposed for on-board
reforming to H2 - but the economics apparently don't look good - and there
is CO2 release (unless coming from biomass).
On the other hand there are those who say that the Internal Combustion
Engine (ICE) can be run on H2 with similar high (maybe when run as an
electric hybrid) efficiencies. Stoves list member Bryan Willson is
something of an expert on this - so I hope will pile in. I repeat that I am
not proposing H2 for anything - only that we produce it from renewable
resources if we find that route to be a good one. Same for methanol and
dimethyl ether.
Do you think that the "Virent" web site offers hope on other RE biomass
options?

Ron
>
>TOM REED BEF
>

<snip>

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun Jul 13 00:26:32 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUL.2003.095632.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

I would like to add the following to what Ron wrote in response to Kevin's
comments:
The Government of India has recently licenced some factories to produce
alcohol from sugarcane. The alcohol would be sold to the petroleum companies
to mix with petrol to make gasohol. The normal procedure in India is to use
the sucrose in the sugarcane for making crystalline sugar and to convert
only the glucose and fructose into alcohol. The new licencees would produce
alcohol from all the sugar in the cane. Taking the average total sugar
content of sugarcane to be about 11%, and the alcohol yield to be about 50%
of sugar, one gets theoretically about 55 kg of alcohol from a tonne of
sugarcane. If one were to produce methane from the same quantity of
sugarcane, even the cellulose and the waxes in the cane would be utilised,
giving a yield about 250 kg of biogas per tonne of sugarcane. If half of
this were assumed to be methane, the methane yield would be about 125 kg,
which is more than double the yield of alcohol. Secondly, biogas, even with
the carbon dioxide mixed in it, can be used as fuel, both for cooking and
also for running an internal combustion engine, whereas alcohol has to be
purified and concentrated before it can be used as fuel. Therefore the cost
of alcohol would always be more than that of methane. At 100% purity,
methane has a higher calorific value than alcohol (Tom, please look up the
figures in your Merck Index and let us know them). At least in India, there
are strict controls on production and sale of alcohol. Making alcohol
privately, without licence, is an offence under the existing law in most
countries, whereas there are no restrictions on making, selling or using
methane. A group of microbiologists in Chennai (formerly Madras) is working
on a fermentation technology that would generate hydrogen, but I am afraid
that if one took the microbiological root, the hydrogen would be mixed with
carbon dioxide. At the present moment, methane is the best carrier of
hydrogen (four H atoms per a single C).
A.D.Karve
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2003 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

>Kevin (cc stoves):
>
>Today you (all that with a >)said:
>
>1.
>>Ron, the advantage of Hydrogen is that it is a "uniform" product,
>>and that a
>>stove or burner system can be designed to burn it effectively. Note that
>>Hydrogen is NOT a fuel any more than a battery is a fuel....
>>hydrogen is an
>>"energy storage commodity".
>
> RWL: a. Agree with your first point, but still believe that a
major
>advantage is what happens after combustion - (only) water is nice to then
>have around in the kitchen.
> b. Have to disagree on whether H2 is a fuel.
> 1. Certainly fits what my dictionary says a fuel is.
> 2. is the optimum input to a "fuel cell"
> 3. I did not use the term "energy source", which is what we can
probably
>both agree H2 is not. I believe we can both agree it is a carrier - but
you
>need to explain to me why H2 cannot be both a carrier and a fuel.
> 4. Below in our discussion point #4, you yourself call H2 a fuel.
> 5. I don't see much relationship between H2 and a battery except
both
>store energy. I am not about to call a battery a fuel.
> 6. H2 is also the most abundant element on the planet - it is more
than an
>"energy storage commodity" - but I agree I am liking it because it does
have
>that storage feature.
>
>2.
>>I would suggest that Hydrogen Stoves are a long way into the future. How
>>much does it cost to buy or make hydrogen, inn terms of $ per million BTU?
>
> RWL: a. Agree with your first point and thought I had said the
same.
> b. The cheapest Renewable source today is from wind.
Ignoring the cost
>of electolysis, electricity at 3.6 c/kWh is $10/GJ (about $10 /MMBtu).
>(using 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ) Of course I can't ignore the electrolyzer - but it
>is a smaller part of the total and costs are projected to come down
>significantly - and some RE processes don't require one.
> Another unit of costing is by weight - with a common goal
given as $2/kg.
>Using a higher heating value of .141 GJ/kg (see Tom Reed's web site), this
>comes out to about $14/GJ.
> To such a number should be added comparable numbers for
storage and
>transport - depending on distance.
> I am guessing that many rural folk are paying (when
unsubsidized) prices
>greater than this today - and those prices are soon going higher.
> Not really terribly attractive today - but if one can
postulate/hope for
>PV and future direct photon conversion systems at the village level
>eventually giving electricity in the 3.6 cent range, then I think these
>costs would be comparable to the imported fossil alternatives - especially
>if you consider health impacts. Note if you are fortunate enough to be
>cooking when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, you would use
>electricity directly for cooking. But electricity is not an absolute need.
> Biomass conversion options have the same general numbers -
but are closer
>today.
> Solar thermal conversion is interesting because the
efficiency of
>conversion from photons to H2 can exceed 50% with thermo-chemical process
>possible at the high temperatures reachable with the concentrating ST
>approach. Takes up half the land area as for (today's) PV. Might find that
>one moves a chemical around (zinc plus water gives zinc oxide plus
>hydrogen - and the zinc oxide can be recycled into zinc at this suggested
>high efficiency).
> If you want to go way out - think nanotechnology. Proven
at much lower
>frequencies to be possible to convert an incoming wave to dc at 85%
>effciency.
>>
>
>3.
>>Would Hydrogen be any more or less dangerous than Natural Gas or LPG
gases?
>
> a. The H2 proponents say less so - the main reason being that H2
is so
>light that it dissipates quickly. Also flame is essentially colorless - so
>radiation effects are much diminished. Test photos I have seen of
simulated
>car crashes seem to bear this out when comparing to gasoline. Extensive
use
>by NASA. About 1% of US energy is in the form of H2 with 1000s of miles of
>pipelines in place in the US - and I don't remember much concern from
>accidents.
> b. Opposite view is based on extremely low energy needed to
ignite, wide
>range of flammability conditions, etc. One interesting fact is that the
>combustion products occupy less space, so one needs to think about
>implosions.
> c. I disqualify myself as an expert on this topic.
>
>>
>>>
> 3.
>>Isn't this a bit of overkill for a stove? What are likely to be the
>>comparative economics of setting up to produce hydrogen, versus
>>burning its
>>raw material source directly?
>
> RWL: a. Kevin's "this" above refers to the process used by the
company
>Harmon brought to our attention and which I was following up after going to
>their web site (note this company is very much in the start-up phase).
>Harmon was kindly reporting that the company "Virent" was claiming they
>could produce propane from (wet, starchy) input biomass like that being
used
>successfully now by AD - for household CH4, just going beyond Tom Reed's
>admonition yesterday that this sort of product ".. is not made
>synthetically." My (probably misguided) "contribution" was only to note
>that the same new small company is receiving some notoriety for claiming
the
>same about H2. Then I got carried away - my apologies to all.
> b. The only reason for bringing in H2 or any of these more
centralized
>fuels is that we do not have proof yet that we can cook cleanly enough with
>the solid fuels. I certainly hope we can provide that proof. In that
>regard, I strongly urge all of us to look closely at what AD is doing at
low
>cost with CH4. There is no fundamental reason that AD's system couldn't
>eventually work just as well (meaning cheap) by producing H2. That work is
>just beginning. Personally I would rather work with H2 than CH4 - since I
>know I won't have to worry about CO poisoning. Also - with H2, I can start
>thinking (way off) as an input to tiny fuel cells that we will probably see
>replacing some batteries - even in the next few years.
> c. Some of this discussion is based on Kirk Smith's
observation in
>"Science" a few months ago that these commmercial fossil fuels might well
be
>justified for subsidy by the wealthy nations - both for humanitarian and
for
>global warming reasons. I have been trying to concentrate only on those
>fuels that could be produced locally from renewable resources. That is why
>I liked Harmon's addition.
> d. Think I answered some of the economics issues above. We
have heard on
>this list some very attractive numbers for ethanol based fuels. AD is
>claiming good economics for his locally produced CH4. But to keep prices
>low, one needs to keep the transportation distance down (meaning only the
>renewable options). And all of the fossil fuels will have associated
hidden
>balance of payments charges, national security concerns, employment issues,
>etc. in most developing countries.
> e. I have been emphasizing liquid and gaseous options so
far, but I am
>certainly hopeful that my 7-year push for charcoal-making stoves will
>eventually prove a winner. Just wanting to mention all the other options.
> f. One more that needs mentioning is the solar cooker.
Some storage
>capability has been proposed with hot oils. Also a "solar pond" can allow
>cooking 24-7 at temperatures right about boiling.
> g. Not wrong for us to concentrate on solid fuels - but
every once in a
>while we should discuss the alternatives.
>
>4)
>>Given that success of the Hydrogen Conversion Process could be a
>>long way in
>>the future, and that it will likely yield a fuel gas that is relatively
>>costly, if it is successful, is not the best way to proceed now to
continue
>>with solid fuels?
>
> RWL: Possibly so - but no reason to not do both (and I especially
want to
>keep coming back to what AD has discovered this past year on CH4). There
are
>lots of new approaches waiting to be developed.
> If the world put as much money into stove R&D as into the cost of
one
>military aircraft this worldwide indoor health problem would have been
>solved long ago. Our (global, but mostly US) problem is lack of the right
>priorities.
>>
>5.
>>Ethanol is a "Factory Fuel." It requires a "central production facility",
>>but in contrast to petroleum based products, there is a potential to have
>>"local ethanol factories," operating on indigenous fuels. Would this be
>>acceptable to the people for whom the stoves are intended?
>
> RWL: There are certainly some who say so. Don't historians say
that the
>making of ethanol is the world's second oldest profession? Economies of
>scale and the costs of transportation will dictate the right scale for
>ethanol - or any of several other options (including CH4, H2, etc). We
>don't move in an ethanol or other "centralized" (but still renewable)
manner
>because we (the world) don't appreciate the (mostly health) costs of not
>doing so. Centralization might lead to lower costs - but also it might
not.
>Getting better processes and better "bugs" could help a lot.
>>
> 6)
>>Is it the wish or the purpose of the Stoves List to focus on the
>>development
>>of stoves requiring such a "Factory Fuel?"
>>
> RWL: a. Probably not - but part of my reason for spending time on
the
>subject is to tell potential funders that R&D dollars are needed. Our most
>knowledgeable spokesperson on the health impacts of stoves (Kirk) has
>concluded that factory fuels are the way to go. Because I have been
>convinced on the health impacts, I could agree if I thought any big country
>would start chipping in. But since that is unlikely , we on this list have
>to keep banging awy on getting cleaner stoves (not just cheaper and more
>efficient). Unfortunately, I claim we haven't got one single lab anywhere
>in the world equipped to do this - even if we had the money to conduct the
>testing.
> b. AD has proven that these fuels don't have to be considered
"factory".
>
> 7)
>>Stranded Natural Gas and Methanol are not renewable. If the
>>renewable energy
>>of choice is to come from the "direct burning of biomass", then would it
be
>>possible to start by defining the biomass fuels and their specifications
so
>>that the Stove Designer would at least have a starting point?
>>
> RWL: a. Have to disagree with first sentence - both fuels
(equating
>"natural gas" to CH4) can be renewable. I was of course not claiming that
>stranded natural gas was renewable - only that it is cheap - and that
moving
>CH4 in the form of methanol might well happen in the future. Of course,
>some methanol is already being commercially produced from biomass - not a
>tough trick at all.
> b. Not sure I am ready to agree with your second sentence "if".
There are
>some other options that I would like to hear more about. We have people on
>this list who swear by seed oils, which have not been mentioned for awhile.
>Probably can be made very clean burning. Might be able to say the same
about
>turpentine - or some other similar wood-based, but esily collected "fuel".
I
>remember somewhere hearing about latex-based "saps" from plants such as
>milkweed as having a potentially low cost when grown commercially. Who
>knows what else is lurking out there to surprise us all.
> c. But taking your "if" further, this ("definition") is still too
big a
>task for this response - or probably even the rest of the year if all list
>members get involved. We have lots of experts on this list pushing one or
>another solid fuel and I am too long already to get further into that
topic.
>I can agree that more work is needed along these lines - as exemplified by
>some of the discussion last week just on moisture content. For another
>example, there is absolutely no agreement yet on the value of holes in
>briquettes. Long way to go!! I encourage you to suggest to us a path for
>classifying just the solid fuels. This is not a bad question.
>
>Whew! Sorry for the verbosity.
>
>Ron
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Jul 13 11:59:35 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUL.2003.125935.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron
Subject: RE: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

> 1.
> >Ron, the advantage of Hydrogen is that it is a "uniform" product,
> >and that a
> >stove or burner system can be designed to burn it effectively. Note that
> >Hydrogen is NOT a fuel any more than a battery is a fuel....
> >hydrogen is an
> >"energy storage commodity".
>
> RWL: a. Agree with your first point, but still believe that a major
> advantage is what happens after combustion - (only) water is nice to then
> have around in the kitchen.
> b. Have to disagree on whether H2 is a fuel.
> 1. Certainly fits what my dictionary says a fuel is.
> 2. is the optimum input to a "fuel cell"
> 3. I did not use the term "energy source", which is what we can probably
> both agree H2 is not. I believe we can both agree it is a carrier - but
you
> need to explain to me why H2 cannot be both a carrier and a fuel.
> 4. Below in our discussion point #4, you yourself call H2 a fuel.
> 5. I don't see much relationship between H2 and a battery except both
> store energy. I am not about to call a battery a fuel.
> 6. H2 is also the most abundant element on the planet - it is more than
an
> "energy storage commodity" - but I agree I am liking it because it does
have
> that storage feature.

Ron, you have some very good points here. However, we normally think of
"fuel" in its context of "bringing new energy into the system". Fossil and
biomass fuels, wind, sun, and water power can be "captured" for the energy
within them. We cannot "mine" or "capture" hydrogen as an energy source. It
is necessary to start with a feedstock containing hydrogen and apply energy
to produce hydrogen, which we can then transport to the point of use.

There is indeed a problem with clarity of definition. In common usage, we
think of a material that can release energy as "fuel", yet there is a very
big difference between natural gas, as a source of energy, and hydrogen as a
carrier. Thinking of hydrogen as a "source of energy" is the same as
thinking of "the grid" and a source of electricity.
>
> 2.
> >I would suggest that Hydrogen Stoves are a long way into the future. How
> >much does it cost to buy or make hydrogen, inn terms of $ per million
BTU?
>
> RWL: a. Agree with your first point and thought I had said the same.
> b. The cheapest Renewable source today is from wind. Ignoring the cost
> of electolysis, electricity at 3.6 c/kWh is $10/GJ (about $10 /MMBtu).

OK, but this is for very large windfarm scale power in good locations.
Smaller scale installations in "average" locations could easily be 3 to 5
times as costly.

> (using 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ) Of course I can't ignore the electrolyzer - but it
> is a smaller part of the total and costs are projected to come down
> significantly - and some RE processes don't require one.

Firstly, isn't there a significant energy loss in electrolysis? The RE
processes for producing hydrogen would require other "process equipment."

> Another unit of costing is by weight - with a common goal given as $2/kg.
> Using a higher heating value of .141 GJ/kg (see Tom Reed's web site), this
> comes out to about $14/GJ.

This is a "goal." Can we ac tually buy hydrogen anywhere for $US14 per GJ?

> To such a number should be added comparable numbers for storage and
> transport - depending on distance.

Thats a killer indeed. Someone previously posted a vivid example, where a
"hydrogen tanker" could only drive 800 miles before it emptied its tank.
This is somewhat analagous to transmitting electricity over high resistance
lines.... a very large "line loss".

>I am guessing that many rural folk are paying (when unsubsidized) >prices
>greater than this today - and those prices are soon going higher.
>Not really terribly attractive today - but if one can postulate/hope for
>PV and future direct photon conversion systems at the village level
> eventually giving electricity in the 3.6 cent range, then I think these
> costs would be comparable to the imported fossil alternatives - especially
> if you consider health impacts. Note if you are fortunate enough to be
> cooking when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, you would use
> electricity directly for cooking. But electricity is not an absolute
need.

If PV and wind systems improve to the point where they can make hydrogen for
cooking, then as you note, the electricity would be best used directly or
with battery storage. Hydrogen for cooking appears to be a fatally flawed
concept: "Hydrogen it too expensive and cumbersome at the present, but might
be feasible if cost effective PV and wind systems become available, but then
it would be easier to use the electricity directly."

> Biomass conversion options have the same general numbers - but are closer
> today.
> Solar thermal conversion is interesting because the efficiency of
> conversion from photons to H2 can exceed 50% with thermo-chemical process
> possible at the high temperatures reachable with the concentrating ST
> approach. Takes up half the land area as for (today's) PV. Might find
that
> one moves a chemical around (zinc plus water gives zinc oxide plus
> hydrogen - and the zinc oxide can be recycled into zinc at this suggested
> high efficiency).

This is "possible future technology." Even if it is successfully developed
to a "wildly successful" level, it would seem to have little application in
Third World conditions, where it is difficult to keep a stove pipe clean.

> If you want to go way out - think nanotechnology. Proven at much lower
> frequencies to be possible to convert an incoming wave to dc at 85%
> effciency.
> >
I am not familiar with this technology, but I do understand that that it
has very interesting possibilities.

> 3.
> >Would Hydrogen be any more or less dangerous than Natural Gas or LPG
gases?
>
> a. The H2 proponents say less so - the main reason being that H2 is so
> light that it dissipates quickly. Also flame is essentially colorless -
so
> radiation effects are much diminished. Test photos I have seen of
simulated
> car crashes seem to bear this out when comparing to gasoline. Extensive
use
> by NASA. About 1% of US energy is in the form of H2 with 1000s of miles
of
> pipelines in place in the US - and I don't remember much concern from
> accidents.
> b. Opposite view is based on extremely low energy needed to ignite, wide
> range of flammability conditions, etc. One interesting fact is that the
> combustion products occupy less space, so one needs to think about
> implosions.
> c. I disqualify myself as an expert on this topic.
>
I think the "bottom line" is that all gas fuels are dangerous, but if
handled "properly", there is no danger.

> >
> >>
> 3.
> >Isn't this a bit of overkill for a stove? What are likely to be the
> >comparative economics of setting up to produce hydrogen, versus
> >burning its
> >raw material source directly?
>
> RWL: a. Kevin's "this" above refers to the process used by the company
> Harmon brought to our attention and which I was following up after going
to
> their web site (note this company is very much in the start-up phase).
> Harmon was kindly reporting that the company "Virent" was claiming they
> could produce propane from (wet, starchy) input biomass like that being
used
> successfully now by AD - for household CH4, just going beyond Tom Reed's
> admonition yesterday that this sort of product ".. is not made
> synthetically." My (probably misguided) "contribution" was only to note
> that the same new small company is receiving some notoriety for claiming
the
> same about H2. Then I got carried away - my apologies to all.
> b. The only reason for bringing in H2 or any of these more centralized
> fuels is that we do not have proof yet that we can cook cleanly enough
with
> the solid fuels.

Now we are talking!! This is the key issue, as I see it:
Designing a:
1: "stove system"
2: " to cook"
3: "cleanly" and
4: "efficiently"
5: with "solid fuels.

On the one hand, this is no problem whatsoever, but on the other hand, it
is a totally impossible task. The MAJOR mistake I see being made is to think
that there is such a thing as a "universal stove." There is no such thing as
a "universal stove" because of the gross differences in the above 5
parameters from site to site. Indeed there are many "perfectly adequate"
stoves now readily available all over the World, yet these very same
stoves would be miserable failures if they were used in applications for
which they were not designed.

> I certainly hope we can provide that proof.

The proof is all around us, of both successes and failure:
1: Some existing stoves are perfectly adequate for their intended
aplication.
2: Some stove systems are basically good but fail because of smoke
considerations that could be readily cured with the addition of a chimney
or exhaust hood.
3: Some stove systems are very much below standards of acceptability, and
require "new designs" to get them up to a minimum level of acceptability.

I feel that the merits and goodness of "Class1" and "Class 2" stoves are
generally overlooked and that it is the "Class 3" stoves that create the
general image of the "state of stove technology."

In that
> regard, I strongly urge all of us to look closely at what AD
(I presume you mean "A.D.Karve" rather than "Anaerobic Digestion")
is doing at low
> cost with CH4.

I think that this is a wonderful system, and that it is indeed extremely
appropriate for use in its intended application.....

There is no fundamental reason that AD's system couldn't
> eventually work just as well (meaning cheap) by producing H2.

I don't know enough about the hydrogen process, but Mother Nature seem to
have a fundamental preference for making CH4 rather than H2.

That work is
> just beginning. Personally I would rather work with H2 than CH4 - since I
> know I won't have to worry about CO poisoning.

CO poisoning is not a concern with a properly designed and vented stove.

Also - with H2, I can start
> thinking (way off) as an input to tiny fuel cells that we will probably
see
> replacing some batteries - even in the next few years.

Solar PV can now do this.

> c. Some of this discussion is based on Kirk Smith's observation in
> "Science" a few months ago that these commmercial fossil fuels might well
be
> justified for subsidy by the wealthy nations - both for humanitarian and
for
> global warming reasons.

Is Kirk's Article available "on line?" If so, would you have a URL?

I have been trying to concentrate only on those
> fuels that could be produced locally from renewable resources. That is
why
> I liked Harmon's addition.

I think this is a very important parameter... indigenous energy sourcing.
Tree plantations and solar farms 100 miles away are inherently less
efficient ways of delivering energy to the point of use.

> d. Think I answered some of the economics issues above. We have heard on
> this list some very attractive numbers for ethanol based fuels. AD is
> claiming good economics for his locally produced CH4. But to keep prices
> low, one needs to keep the transportation distance down (meaning only the
> renewable options). And all of the fossil fuels will have associated
hidden
> balance of payments charges, national security concerns, employment
issues,
> etc. in most developing countries.

Actually, there are areas where fossil fuels are indigenous, and these
concerns are not relevant. However, it is the Developed Countries who bear
the security concerns, and the Under-Developed countries with no fossil
fuels that have the balance of payment and foreign exchange concerns.

It is interesting to observe that most of the US Defence spending of $1
Billion per day is made to ensure security of oil supply. With the US
importing about 25 million Barrels per day, this is about $40 worth of
security charges to get $30 worth of oil.

> e. I have been emphasizing liquid and gaseous options so far, but I am
> certainly hopeful that my 7-year push for charcoal-making stoves will
> eventually prove a winner. Just wanting to mention all the other options.

There are indeed areas where charcoal producing stoves are the most
approrpiate way to go. However, there are other areas where complete burning
is preferred.

> f. One more that needs mentioning is the solar cooker. Some storage
> capability has been proposed with hot oils. Also a "solar pond" can allow
> cooking 24-7 at temperatures right about boiling.

There are sites where solar cooking and solar ponds are very appropriate
also.

> g. Not wrong for us to concentrate on solid fuels - but every once in a
> while we should discuss the alternatives.
>
Yes indeed!! AD's clever digestor is a good example of an "up and coming
real world improvement."

> 4)
> >Given that success of the Hydrogen Conversion Process could be a
> >long way in
> >the future, and that it will likely yield a fuel gas that is relatively
> >costly, if it is successful, is not the best way to proceed now to
continue
> >with solid fuels?
>
> RWL: Possibly so - but no reason to not do both (and I especially want to
> keep coming back to what AD has discovered this past year on CH4). There
are
> lots of new approaches waiting to be developed.
> If the world put as much money into stove R&D as into the cost of one
> military aircraft this worldwide indoor health problem would have been
> solved long ago. Our (global, but mostly US) problem is lack of the right
> priorities.

AD's thrust is good as far as it goes, but it is certainly not universally
applicable. It is a solution to a portion of the problem. Solid biomass can
be had virtually everywhere, so it makes general sense that stove systems be
run on it. However, in some areas, it can be scarce, or expensive relative
to other primary energy sources, and other prime energy sources may be
more appropriate for the end user.

> >
> 5.
> >Ethanol is a "Factory Fuel." It requires a "central production facility",
> >but in contrast to petroleum based products, there is a potential to have
> >"local ethanol factories," operating on indigenous fuels. Would this be
> >acceptable to the people for whom the stoves are intended?
>
> RWL: There are certainly some who say so. Don't historians say that the
> making of ethanol is the world's second oldest profession? Economies of
> scale and the costs of transportation will dictate the right scale for
> ethanol - or any of several other options (including CH4, H2, etc). We
> don't move in an ethanol or other "centralized" (but still renewable)
manner
> because we (the world) don't appreciate the (mostly health) costs of not
> doing so. Centralization might lead to lower costs - but also it might
not.
> Getting better processes and better "bugs" could help a lot.

In sugar growing areas, it is relatively easy to ferment cane juice and
distill to 95% alcohol. The alcohol is best used as a "portable fuel", or
for special applications. Cane trash and bagasse are perhaps the better
source for "stove energy", either being burned directly, or after
charcoaling.
> >
> 6)
> >Is it the wish or the purpose of the Stoves List to focus on the
> >development
> >of stoves requiring such a "Factory Fuel?"
> >
> RWL: a. Probably not - but part of my reason for spending time on the
> subject is to tell potential funders that R&D dollars are needed.

At the risk of goring a lot of peoples oxen, I would suggest that there are
many people who can easily design a stove to accomplish a specific purpose.
The major problem as I see it is not "stove technology", but rather,
defining the parameters that the stove must meet.

Our most
> knowledgeable spokesperson on the health impacts of stoves (Kirk) has
> concluded that factory fuels are the way to go.

I would respectfully disagree with the need for factory fuels as the only or
best way to attain suitable health conditions. I would suggest that any
"reasonably well designed stove" with a chimney or exhaust hood will yield
an acceptable living space condition.

Because I have been
> convinced on the health impacts, I could agree if I thought any big
country
> would start chipping in. But since that is unlikely , we on this list
have
> to keep banging awy on getting cleaner stoves (not just cheaper and more
> efficient).

Two excellent starting points are:
1: Definition of the circumstances under which the stove must operate, and
what it is to accomplish.
2: Install a chimney or exhaust hood.

Unfortunately, I claim we haven't got one single lab anywhere
> in the world equipped to do this - even if we had the money to conduct the
> testing.

At the risk of goring oxen, why not just do it? I would bet a box of beer
that if someone said to someone like Crispin: " Heres what we need, and if
you build it, we will buy 10,000," that he would provide the testing to
demonstrate that the stove met Specifications.

> b. AD has proven that these fuels don't have to be considered "factory".
>
AD's cane trash charcoaling operation is indeed a "factory operation", in
that there is central processing to a given standard of quality. However
this is an "indigenous factory", run by local people, and using an
indigenous resource. This, to me, is a fundamentally sound way to go.

> 7)
> >Stranded Natural Gas and Methanol are not renewable. If the
> >renewable energy
> >of choice is to come from the "direct burning of biomass", then would it
be
> >possible to start by defining the biomass fuels and their specifications
so
> >that the Stove Designer would at least have a starting point?
> >
> RWL: a. Have to disagree with first sentence - both fuels (equating
> "natural gas" to CH4) can be renewable. I was of course not claiming that
> stranded natural gas was renewable - only that it is cheap - and that
moving
> CH4 in the form of methanol might well happen in the future. Of course,
> some methanol is already being commercially produced from biomass - not a
> tough trick at all.

Stranded Natural Gas implies a well, and fossil sourcing. As I understand
it, methanol plants are inherently large scale and high tech. Would anyone
know if there was a "back yard methanol plant" that could economically
operate to produce at very small quantities, say 1 to 10 TPD methanol, at an
economic cost?

> b. Not sure I am ready to agree with your second sentence "if". There are
> some other options that I would like to hear more about. We have people
on
> this list who swear by seed oils, which have not been mentioned for
awhile.
> Probably can be made very clean burning. Might be able to say the same
about
> turpentine - or some other similar wood-based, but esily collected "fuel".
I
> remember somewhere hearing about latex-based "saps" from plants such as
> milkweed as having a potentially low cost when grown commercially. Who
> knows what else is lurking out there to surprise us all.

All these other possible energy resources are good and should also be
considered on the site specific basis where they are appropriate. In
general, however, it will not be economic to burn these seed oils as fuel,
because they generally have a much higher value for other purposes. Oil seed
pressings are generally more valuable as an "oil seed meal", for sale as an
animal feed supplement.

> c. But taking your "if" further, this ("definition") is still too big a
> task for this response - or probably even the rest of the year if all list
> members get involved. We have lots of experts on this list pushing one or
> another solid fuel and I am too long already to get further into that
topic.

My whole point in this collection of threads was to make the point that
there is no such thing as a "Universal Stove", and all the good points you
bring up support this belief.

"There are more ways to kill a cat than by drowing it in warm butter."

> I can agree that more work is needed along these lines - as exemplified by
> some of the discussion last week just on moisture content. For another
> example, there is absolutely no agreement yet on the value of holes in
> briquettes. Long way to go!! I encourage you to suggest to us a path for
> classifying just the solid fuels. This is not a bad question.
>
> Whew! Sorry for the verbosity.

I think you have done the Stoves List a great favor with your verbosity, in
that you show the breadth of both the problems and the opportunities.

Definition of fuels is a very important aspect of the problem. Somebody
could possibly get a grant to define the availability, and properties of
fuels available in those parts of the world where improved stoves are
required. As noted above, the other parameters necessary for a Stove
Designer to do his thing should also be made part of the study. Such a
study should be structured, and possibly undertaken, by a competent stove
designer, because he would know what to look for.

Best wishes, and happy stoving!! :-)

Kevin

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Jul 13 15:03:59 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: Biomass Cooking Stoves Discussion List
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUL.2003.120359.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

The Biomass Cooking Stoves Discussion List - stoves@listserve.repp.org - is intended help people develop better stoves for cooking with biomass fuels in developing regions. The list enjoys the cooperation and participation of many individuals and organizations whose links can be found on the stoves website.

ARCHIVES:
Archives of the stoves discussion can be found at
http://listserv.repp.org/archives/index.html
and by searching the Renewable Energy Policy Project website:
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/

COMMANDS AND SETTINGS:
Participants may join or leave the list, or their change settings, at:
http://listserv.repp.org/archives/stoves.html

For example, users may want to receive a copy of their own postings, recieve the digest version of the list, or temporarily disable mail delivery. Login and change your settings as necessary.

WEBSITE AND FILES:
In order to prevent the spread of computer viruses and unwanted graphic images the list does not permit attachments of any kind. Participants may send files to tmiles@trmiles.com for posting on the list website. The website contains more than 1300 pages with links, images and references to biomass cooking stoves.
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/

A companion site in Spanish is under development at:
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/estufas/

HOST AND FUNDING:
Since 1995 the Stoves list has been hosted by the the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST) of the Renewable Energy Policy Project (www.repp.org). Additional funding and support is provided by T R Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc. (www.trmiles.com). Additions or enhancements to the stoves list and websites must be funded by contributions or sponsors.

MODERATORS:
Messages are posted directly to the list without intervention. The discussion is moderated by volunteers, Ron Larson, (ronallarson@qwest.net ) Elsen L. Karstad (elk@wananchi.com) and Tom Miles (tmiles@trmiles.com).

Thanks for your participation

Tom Miles

From tstubb at IHUG.CO.NZ Sun Jul 13 15:11:47 2003
From: tstubb at IHUG.CO.NZ (Thomas Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUL.2003.071147.1200.TSTUBB@IHUG.CO.NZ>

Dear Dr Karve,

In your above very pertinent message comparing alcohol and methane yields from
sugar cane you wrote (snip):

> ........ one gets theoretically about 55 kg of alcohol from a tonne of
> sugarcane. If one were to produce methane from the same quantity of
> sugarcane, even the cellulose and the waxes in the cane would be utilised,
> giving a yield about 250 kg of biogas per tonne of sugarcane.

Apart from the cane's original mineral content which should presumably be
returned to the soil as fertiliser, what does the 750 kg/tonne remaining after
biogas production consist of?

Can it be dried and used as a fuel or raw material, or possibly turned into
charcoal, or does it represent a disposal problem?

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Jul 13 16:49:06 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUL.2003.144906.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear All;

Just so happens I am in process of setting up a small cane crusher
operation for fermenting ethanol.

This small crusher has a capacity of one ton cane per day. It is a simple
two roller -- large cane has to pass through 3 times -- thinner cane -- twice.

Kind of like planing lumber.

The bagasse by product is in long stringy segments -- and in a hot Belize
sun will dry well in 8 hours -- spread out over a layer of coconut husks
(to aid bottom ventilation)

Bagasse so dried is extremely flammable -- combusts about as rapidly as
diesel -- or maybe even gasoline -- when 'stuffed' into the small
furnace/boiler pan unit I built.

It burns very fast -- flashes off -- and burns very hot!

not much ash in the fire pit either -- just about all of it goes out the
chimney!

A very fine fly ash is produced -- and in such violent burning conditions
-- away it goes.

I am at present building a larger furnace using the knowledge i gained from
this small one.

I am also in the process of optimizing fermentation. Our Cane juice here
comes out raw and fresh with a specific gravity of "around" 1.170

We then boil it down to an S.G. of 1.100 to make a better liquor for
fermenting.

The boiling also serves a few other important functions.

First it sterilizes the cane juice.

But most important -- by steady skimming while boiling one can purify the
juice substantially.

Re-inventing any old wheel -- but making it 3rd world compatible --

Now -- to answer your question -- cane must be at least 70% "liquid" and
that liquid represents 9.5 to 11% pure refined sugar -- of the entire plant
weight.

Bagasse of 55% humidity represents about 30% of the total weight -- sugar
another 10% -- the rest is water.

Mineral based ash 4.5% or so of the bagasse

>what does the 750 kg/tonne remaining after
>biogas production consist of?

Mostly water!!

Just like many other biomass fuels! When harvested "green"!!

Sugar cane is a sweet grass plant.

Oh -- the fireman at my present operation is busy continuously folding
dried stringy bagasse lengths into handful size packs -- then manually
inserting these into the fire box -- wearing a good pair of welder gloves.

No way can we afford a pelletizer -- a hogger -- or a briquette machine.

And you all know what?? It works like the "blazes" -- just like this. Plus
the fireman skims the boiling cane juice as well.

No shortage of good labor available here!! And people not so lazy either!!

Ok -- back out to welding the new boiling pan --

Some do -- some dream -- and some do what they dream about!

Peter Singfield in Belize

At 07:11 AM 7/14/2003 +1200, Thomas Stubbing wrote:
>Dear Dr Karve,
>
>In your above very pertinent message comparing alcohol and methane yields
from
>sugar cane you wrote (snip):
>
>> ........ one gets theoretically about 55 kg of alcohol from a tonne of
>> sugarcane. If one were to produce methane from the same quantity of
>> sugarcane, even the cellulose and the waxes in the cane would be utilised,
>> giving a yield about 250 kg of biogas per tonne of sugarcane.
>
>Apart from the cane's original mineral content which should presumably be
>returned to the soil as fertiliser, what does the 750 kg/tonne remaining
after
>biogas production consist of?
>
>Can it be dried and used as a fuel or raw material, or possibly turned into
>charcoal, or does it represent a disposal problem?
>
>Regards,
>
>Thomas J Stubbing
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Jul 14 11:59:06 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUL.2003.095906.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 10:46 PM 7/14/2003 +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:

Dear All;

Thanks Peter!! You caught a terrible "typo" I made:

>I don't understand this. You boil a sugar solution of S.G. of 1.170
>(compared to water presumably) and, after boiling, driving off some of the
>water, end up with a S.G of 1.100??

Should be 1.070 then boil down to 1.100

I'm using baker's yeast and it has a hard time getting better than 10%
alcohol.

So even the 1.100 might be to sweet -- time and experience will tell.

Right now the brewing slows down greatly at 10% -- but it gets there in 14
days time.

According to instructions that came with the wine making hydrometer 1.080
should yield 10.5%

1.100 should yield 13.2% -- but does not look like the yeast I'm using is
up to that.

I'm wasting boiling -- ergo -- wasting lots of bagasse.

Tom -- in regards to bagasse pellets and briquettes.

Certainly -- an excellent source of commercial fuel as pellets -- etc.

In a sugar factory -- the bagasse comes out as small chips -- easy to
transport and handle.

In my small mill -- it comes out like flattened corn stocks!!

And still would have to be hand folded -- etc -- to gain entrance to any
machine to compress it.

As it stands now -- it is hand folded and directly fired.

It could be hand folded and tied with the same strips -- then piled. But
still -- extra step for no real reason.

Sugar cane is such a bountiful energy crop for anyone living in the tropics.

I pay $25 US per ton for "green" cane delivered to my small machine.

Costs are in this ratio --

Per gallon of "brew" (after boiling down to 1.100 from 1.070)

$0.25 - cost of cane (one ton nets 100 gallons)

$0.60 - cost of labor -- 3 men

Total = $.85 per gallon of what becomes 1/10 alcohol (10%)

Cost of production of one gallon equivalent pure ethanol = $8.50 per gallon!!

But plan on just strong ethanol -- 80%

And costs will come down if indeed SG of 1.080 works.

All the above does not include capital investment --

Fortunately I have an arraignment with a local distiller for supplementing
their supply of "strong-rum" at $25 US per gallon.

Peter

>At 14:49 13/07/03 -0600, you wrote:
>>Dear All;
>>Snip
>
>
>
>>Just so happens I am in process of setting up a small cane crusher
>>operation for fermenting ethanol.
>>
>>
>>I am at present building a larger furnace using the knowledge i gained from
>>this small one.
>>
>>I am also in the process of optimizing fermentation. Our Cane juice here
>>comes out raw and fresh with a specific gravity of "around" 1.170
>>
>>We then boil it down to an S.G. of 1.100 to make a better liquor for
>>fermenting.
>I don't understand this. You boil a sugar solution of S.G. of 1.170
>(compared to water presumably) and, after boiling, driving off some of the
>water, end up with a S.G of 1.100??
>
>Regards,
>
>Peter Verhaart.
>
>

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Mon Jul 14 18:19:57 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
In-Reply-To: <004901c34958$7544d1e0$fe9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUL.2003.161957.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Kevin (cc stoves)-

I am starting over after getting part way through a response, as I think we
are talking past each other and this round robin is getting much too long
for clarity. Yesterday's start on a reply is at the end.

1. I think your main point is that we (everyone and maybe especially those
on "stoves") are wasting time while we are not installing existing improved
(and sufficiently good) stove products. If I haven't framed your concern
correctly please let me know. You are not really writing about, or
interested in, hydrogen - as it looks too costly and too far off. I can
sympathize with much of both positions and believe you will have much
support on "stoves" for this position.

2. I feel a need to say just a bit more about both these parts of your
concerns and then I suggest we separate out the two parts, if anyone wishes
to join in.

3. Re hydrogen - I confess I brought this up mainly because I have been
putting a lot of time on the subject and thought it needed to be included in
the collection of alternative fuels under discussion. I am not promoting H2
as a near term solution to any stove problem. The reason for my looking at
the subject is that (IMO) it is by far the most important influence on the
present US program on renewable energy - a policy subject I have worked on
for 30 years. I am doing this as the principal board member of the American
Solar Energy Society (ASES) working on an H2 white paper due out fairly
soon. ASES (IMO) is the main environmental/energy group taking on the
administration on this topic.
a. Why the "most important influence"? because our administration has
decreed so - it was a bombshell in Bush's State of the Union Address in
February - many hundreds of billions (not millions) of Federal dollars are
on the line. It appears to ASES that support for the newly expanded H2
program is coming out of the existing RE program at DoE. We are mad, as it
appears that the administration is lining up those hundreds of billions for
the coal and nuclear industries. (Fortunately the EU and Japan have also
committed this past few months to the same switch - but they are promoting
H2 only from renewables.)
b. What future H2 role for stoves? It all depends on developments like
that in Wisconsin which Harmon brought to our attention. It likely won't
happen at all soon - but it could - when lots of bright people start trying
to feed lower cost H2 into the huge complex of energy and car companies
saying they are ready to go that route (as opposed mainly to the electric
car, which both industries are opposing). The huge turnover in
infrastructure from oil to hydrogen will likely not wait for the fuel cell
to drop in price - it will start with IC engines. It will happen quite fast
(H2 loves the ICE) if H2 drops enough in price (from whatever source) and if
California and a few other states keep up the pressure.
c. What connection to stoves? If H2 starts gaining momentum because of a
low price and an auto-dominated market, it won't be long before it is used
in all fuel markets - including stoves. The reason for stoves is that
raised by Kirk Smith - it solves all (too strong a word?) indoor air
pollution problems! But won't happen unless there is concern about health
(more below on that)
d. Why might it happen in developing countries? Because that is where H2
could be cheapest and where oil is now highest cost and where a natural gas
infrastructure doesn't exist. Cheap because of low cost labor, low-cost
biomass, plentiful sunshine, etc. And because the EU and Japan want their
H2 to come from RE sources. There is no reason at all to think of huge
tankers traversing the oceans (half the time empty) if people insist that
supposedly clean H2 in fact comes from clean (i.e. RE) resources. H2
production from RE sources has a huge local advantage that our
Administration has not yet learned.

3. Now on your main point of the need to push more rapidly on introduction
of good stoves. my reply mainly has to do with health issues.
a). You asked
>Is Kirk's Article available "on line?" If so, would you have a URL?

RWL: http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/02_smith_3.pdf

b) I fear that to ask for speed, is to ignore Kirk's warning given in that
editorial. He has by far the most expertise on this subject - and he has
given up on carrying out your recommendation on improved stove introduction
at this time.
c) I have concluded that he is both right and wrong. I feel we should not
be introducing a reliance on imported fossil fuel products. But there is no
reason to not introduce superior, store bought fuels (strictly for their
health advantages) if they are locally made (i.e. from RE sources) - even if
they cost more. The question is whether the increased costs offset the
existing costs of poorly performing stoves.
d) Now why is Kirk not in favor of more rapid introduction? I fear that
the reason is that stove workers (the "stoves" list) has not yet
demonstrated superiority. I thought I had made a pretty damning statement
yesterday when I said:

>> Unfortunately, I claim we haven't got one single lab anywhere
>> in the world equipped to do this - even if we had the money to
>>conduct the testing.
>

And you replied:
>At the risk of goring oxen, why not just do it? I would bet a box of beer
>that if someone said to someone like Crispin: " Heres what we need, and if
>you build it, we will buy 10,000," that he would provide the testing to
>demonstrate that the stove met Specifications.

RWL: My problem with your response is that you haven't supplied the
"someone". Maybe Crispin would rise to that challenge - but I would demand
pretty good assurances before I would take on such a challenge myself.
Rather I am afraid we will have to muddle along until we have developed
enough proof with our own limited testing ability to demand more action. So
far we only have proof (IMO) on how bad stoves are.

Ron

Below are some topics I started on. Please feel free to try again if you
feel I didn't answer something critical.

You said today:

a
> <snip> However, we normally think of
>"fuel" in its context of "bringing new energy into the system". <snip>

RWL: This definition of "fuel" isn't one I use.

>>
b.
<snip>
> Can we actually buy hydrogen anywhere for $US14 per GJ?
>

RWL: I have a power point slide showing two citations:..
Source: SRI Chemical Economics Handbook, 2002, Captive H2
Source: Chemical Market Reporter, 2/24/03; Merchant H2
The numbers given are all over the map, but include $2/kg or $14/GJ.
<snip>
>

c.
> <snip> Someone previously posted a vivid example, where a
>"hydrogen tanker" could only drive 800 miles before it emptied its tank.
<snip>

RWL: One would not rationally use a truck to go 800 miles - there would be
a high pressure pipeline - and maybe liquefaction.
>
<snip>
d.
> Hydrogen for cooking appears to be a fatally flawed
>concept: "Hydrogen it too expensive and cumbersome at the present,
>but might be feasible if cost effective PV and wind systems become
>available, but then it would be easier to use the electricity directly."
>
RWL: Except that hydrogen might be the best storage option for the
non-dispatchable PV and wind options - especially when electricity (not
cooking) is needed.

<snip>
e.
>This [talking about zinc] is "possible future technology." Even if it is
successfully developed
>to a "wildly successful" level, it would seem to have little
>application in
>Third World conditions, where it is difficult to keep a stove pipe clean.

RWL: Have to disagree. We are talking here of something that has few
moving parts, albeit a very high temperature. After living in Sudan for a
year - I was amazed at how well they kept their truck fleet running - in
regions where no one had any electric power. Even if limited to bigger
villages, the transport of a bag of metal "chips" should be pretty cheap.
The comparison should be to the transport of cans of propane over much
larger distances.
>
<snip>
e.
>I am not familiar with this technology [talking about nanotechnology], but
I do understand that that it has very interesting possibilities.

(RWL): Again - the huge surprise is that the efficiency of conversion
could (not yet proven) be as high as 85%. Another name for the technique is
"quantum dots".
>

f.
<snip>
>I think the "bottom line" is that all gas fuels are dangerous, but if
>handled "properly", there is no danger.

(RWL): We still need to be looking into the special safety properties of
H2. The "Science" article mostly warned about law suits. The phrase "no
danger" I can't subscribe to.

g.
>Now we are talking!! This is the key issue, as I see it:
>Designing a:
>1: "stove system"
>2: " to cook"
> 3: "cleanly" and
>4: "efficiently"
>5: with "solid fuels.
>
> On the one hand, this is no problem whatsoever, but on the other hand, it
>is a totally impossible task. The MAJOR mistake I see being made
>is to think that there is such a thing as a "universal stove." There is no
>such thing as a "universal stove" because of the gross differences in the
above 5
>parameters from site to site. Indeed there are many "perfectly adequate"
>stoves now readily available all over the World, yet these very same
>stoves would be miserable failures if they were used in applications for
>which they were not designed.

(RWL): I don't remember myself or anyone else raising the subject of a
"universal stove" nor have I been advocating one.
To your list, I must add the concept of "economically" - which you might
mean by "efficiently" (which is very different in meaning on this list).
Chimneys seem to be generally an appropriate option - but sometimes not seen
to be worth their cost and effort - as we have heard in the last few weeks.

h.
>> I certainly hope we can provide that proof.
>
>The proof is all around us, of both successes and failure:
>1: Some existing stoves are perfectly adequate for their intended
>application.
>2: Some stove systems are basically good but fail because of smoke
>considerations that could be readily cured with the addition of a chimney
>or exhaust hood.
>3: Some stove systems are very much below standards of acceptability, and
>require "new designs" to get them up to a minimum level of acceptability.
>
>I feel that the merits and goodness of "Class1" and "Class 2" stoves are
>generally overlooked and that it is the "Class 3" stoves that create the
>general image of the "state of stove technology."

(RWL): Your class 1) stoves are generally not being adopted without
subsidy - I think those in China may be in this category - as the subsidy
program seems to have stopped and they are continuing with making pretty
good stoves. But I haven't yet seen this in print - and it may not be true.
I would like to know much more about how good they are. A.D. Karve
(clarifying AD to NOT mean "anaerobic digestion" in any of my messages) has
reported on how the Indian program was stopped because there apparently were
no stoves in this category.
Your class 2) stoves are often OK - but many of them have major subsidy
programs. We have been hearing that chimneys are not being accepted.

So we probably agree on #3 - but I am still worried about the #1 and #2
categories. I am greatly concerned that the Shell Foundation has begun big
introductions of several stoves that may be pretty good - but have never
been tested - even partially. They could all well be adding to global
warming and health issue - even though claimed to be in your #1 or #2
category..

> <snip>

i.
>I think that this (the A.D. karve production of CH4] is a wonderful system,
and that it is indeed extremely
>appropriate for use in its intended application.....
>
> There is no fundamental reason that AD's system couldn't
>> eventually work just as well (meaning cheap) by producing H2.
>
>I don't know enough about the hydrogen process, but Mother Nature seem to
>have a fundamental preference for making CH4 rather than H2.

(RWL): Maybe - but apparently there are bacteria out there already
producing H2 (can't provide an exact reference - but look for "Mellis" or
Melis at Berkeley). But know that there are researchers figuring how to
maximize the H2 production process better now. Can't be too much harder
than the amazing job chlorophyll does in producing O2.

j. <SNIP>
>CO poisoning is not a concern with a properly designed and vented stove.

(RWL - Sorry - can't agree - too many annual CO deaths. In any case, CO
also is a global warming contributor.

k.
>Solar PV can now do this [ talking about small fuels cells].

RWL: Not at night and batteries not for many hours a day. I hope you are
not predicting that small fuels cells can't make it in the marketplace.
>
>
>
<snip>
l.
>I think this [RWL: I guess "Harmon's addition on the start-up company using
biomass for various chemical products] is a very important parameter...
indigenous energy sourcing.
>Tree plantations and solar farms 100 miles away are inherently less
>efficient ways of delivering energy to the point of use.

RWL: I guess we agree - but no reason to bring in the term "100 miles" I
hope from anything I have said. Tree plantations and PV should hopefully be
within meters of users.
>

<snip>
>
>
Here, as you started on point 4) is where I gave up to try to summarize
our general disagreements. As I said above - you or anyone else are free
to ask me for any response to a response. Not trying to duck a dispute
here.

Ron

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun Jul 13 22:40:26 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:31 2004
Subject: hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUL.2003.081026.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Mr. Stubbing,
Peter Springfield has already answered that the remaining 75% consists
mostly of water. Actually, it is about 70% water and 5% lignin and
minerals. But the proportion of different components may change, depending
upon the season, variety, fertilizers applied, stage of harvest, etc. While
Peter uses only sugarcane juice, we use macerated whole sugarcane in our
biogas fermenter. The slurry that remains after anaerobic fermentation of
sugarcane is a good organic supplement to soil.
A.D.Karve
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Stubbing <tstubb@IHUG.CO.NZ>
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Date: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.

>Dear Dr Karve,
>
>In your above very pertinent message comparing alcohol and methane yields
from
>sugar cane you wrote (snip):
>
>> ........ one gets theoretically about 55 kg of alcohol from a tonne of
>> sugarcane. If one were to produce methane from the same quantity of
>> sugarcane, even the cellulose and the waxes in the cane would be
utilised,
>> giving a yield about 250 kg of biogas per tonne of sugarcane.
>
>Apart from the cane's original mineral content which should presumably be
>returned to the soil as fertiliser, what does the 750 kg/tonne remaining
after
>biogas production consist of?
>
>Can it be dried and used as a fuel or raw material, or possibly turned into
>charcoal, or does it represent a disposal problem?
>
>Regards,
>
>Thomas J Stubbing
>

From rmiranda at INET.COM.BR Mon Jul 14 22:18:05 2003
From: rmiranda at INET.COM.BR (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: About technology transfer
In-Reply-To: <013301c34507$20616fd0$589a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUL.2003.231805.0300.RMIRANDA@INET.COM.BR>

Kevin: below my response to your Email from 08/07/03 -,

Kevin Chisholm wrote
Dear Rogerio

>My views are basically that it is impossible to design a good "Universal
>Stove", because the "total system" in which they work is very different, and
>not at all "Universal." A stove system for the tropics, where home heating
>is not a concern would be very different from a stove system for a region
>where home heating was an important consideration also. A stove system
>intended to have intense heat for frying and "top surface cooking" would be
>different from a stove system intended for stews and slow cooking. A stove
>system intended to run on charcoal would be quite different from one
>intended to run on chunk wood, charcoal, twigs, or moist dung. Etc..
>Indeed, two people with the same stove in the same room cooking the same
>meal at the same time using biomass fuel from the same pile will get
>different results, in terms of rate of cooking, degree of pollution, and
>consumption of fuel

Rogerio: I was refering to those who need a woodstove among the 2 billion
out there without modern household fuel. I believe the majority of those
are in the tropics, and also only to those who use wood as fuel.

You are right that different types of wood, different humidity and
different operators can produce so many different combustions dynamics.
However considering open fires, the trick is to eliminate as much
combustion variables as possible and concentrate in three basic elements
for a good woodfire: good fuel, right amount of oxygen and enough heat to
ignite and hold the fire. In this respect Dr Larry Winiarsky with
his simple and clever rocket stove, has made just that, eliminate many
variables and concentrated in what is important for a woodfire. Of
course, it is not yet perfect, but we made a good progress forward.

Now, from "the rocket stove" and it variations of accessories ( full
covered griddle or semi open griddle, oven or no oven, chimney or no
chimney, water heater or no water heater, etc) I believe is leading us
toward a "universal stove".

>Kevin: To view your example of the Brazilian Stove from a
>different light..... it took 100 years for it to become widely accepted...

Rogerio: It took less than 100 years to be accepted. I guess it started
about 100 years ago, but elderly people which I have questioning about it,
remember this stove being used since before the second world war.

From tstubb at IHUG.CO.NZ Mon Jul 14 22:46:37 2003
From: tstubb at IHUG.CO.NZ (Thomas Stubbing)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.
Message-ID: <TUE.15.JUL.2003.144637.1200.TSTUBB@IHUG.CO.NZ>

Dear Dr Karve,

Thank you!

I note your "The slurry that remains after anaerobic fermentation of sugarcane
is a good organic supplement to soil." and hope that slurry (with its mineral
content) will be returned to the soil to maintain its long term fertility.

I had noticed Peter Singfield's reversal of the specific gravities when
concentrating the sugur by boiling, but meanwhile he himself has corrected them.

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

"A.D. Karve" wrote:

> Dear Mr. Stubbing,
> Peter Springfield has already answered that the remaining 75% consists
> mostly of water. Actually, it is about 70% water and 5% lignin and
> minerals. But the proportion of different components may change, depending
> upon the season, variety, fertilizers applied, stage of harvest, etc. While
> Peter uses only sugarcane juice, we use macerated whole sugarcane in our
> biogas fermenter. The slurry that remains after anaerobic fermentation of
> sugarcane is a good organic supplement to soil.
> A.D.Karve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Stubbing <tstubb@IHUG.CO.NZ>
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Date: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.
>
> >Dear Dr Karve,
> >
> >In your above very pertinent message comparing alcohol and methane yields
> from
> >sugar cane you wrote (snip):
> >
> >> ........ one gets theoretically about 55 kg of alcohol from a tonne of
> >> sugarcane. If one were to produce methane from the same quantity of
> >> sugarcane, even the cellulose and the waxes in the cane would be
> utilised,
> >> giving a yield about 250 kg of biogas per tonne of sugarcane.
> >
> >Apart from the cane's original mineral content which should presumably be
> >returned to the soil as fertiliser, what does the 750 kg/tonne remaining
> after
> >biogas production consist of?
> >
> >Can it be dried and used as a fuel or raw material, or possibly turned into
> >charcoal, or does it represent a disposal problem?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Thomas J Stubbing
> >

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jul 15 02:41:46 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <TUE.15.JUL.2003.034146.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@qwest.net>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: RE: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

Well, the simple reason for the length is that there are many factors to be
considered. The Subject cannot be handled with a "30 second clip". :-)
>
> 1. I think your main point is that we (everyone and maybe especially
those
> on "stoves") are wasting time while we are not installing existing
improved
> (and sufficiently good) stove products. If I haven't framed your concern
> correctly please let me know.

I think that my major points are that:
1: there is no such thing as a universal stove,
and that
2: there are many good stoves already available that either already work
"acceptably", or that could be made to work "acceptable" with relatively
little effort."

You are not really writing about, or
> interested in, hydrogen - as it looks too costly and too far off. I can
> sympathize with much of both positions and believe you will have much
> support on "stoves" for this position.

No, for the reason that there is a large wood fuel base already available,
and the greatest good can be delivered relatively quickly by configuring a
family of stoves that solve say 90% of the problems.
>
> 2. I feel a need to say just a bit more about both these parts of your
> concerns and then I suggest we separate out the two parts, if anyone
wishes
> to join in.
>
> 3. Re hydrogen - I confess I brought this up mainly because I have been
> putting a lot of time on the subject and thought it needed to be included
in
> the collection of alternative fuels under discussion. I am not promoting
H2
> as a near term solution to any stove problem. The reason for my looking
at
> the subject is that (IMO) it is by far the most important influence on the
> present US program on renewable energy - a policy subject I have worked on
> for 30 years. I am doing this as the principal board member of the
American
> Solar Energy Society (ASES) working on an H2 white paper due out fairly
> soon. ASES (IMO) is the main environmental/energy group taking on the
> administration on this topic.
> a. Why the "most important influence"? because our administration has
> decreed so - it was a bombshell in Bush's State of the Union Address in
> February - many hundreds of billions (not millions) of Federal dollars are
> on the line. It appears to ASES that support for the newly expanded H2
> program is coming out of the existing RE program at DoE. We are mad, as
it
> appears that the administration is lining up those hundreds of billions
for
> the coal and nuclear industries. (Fortunately the EU and Japan have also
> committed this past few months to the same switch - but they are promoting
> H2 only from renewables.)

Again, at the risk of goring other peoples R&D funded oxen, I feel that the
hydrogen program described above is somewhat perverted. Hydrogen is NOT a
prime source of energy any more than is electricity... it is simply a way
to transport and store energy. It strikes me that the objectives of the
whole Hydrogen Program are basically as follows:
1: A lot of people are going to make a lot of money at teh expense of the
US Taxpayer.
2: "Clean Hydrogen" is simply a politically acceptable way to gut all the
environmentally protective measures that constrained the use of dirty coal
and nuclear power.

This is getting off on a tangent from our stove concerns, but the reality is
that these "Central Programs" even if successful, in the forseeable future,
they would not help the people that the stoves programs being contemplated
here (ie, the Stoves List) are intended to help.

> b. What future H2 role for stoves? It all depends on developments like
> that in Wisconsin which Harmon brought to our attention. It likely won't
> happen at all soon - but it could - when lots of bright people start
trying
> to feed lower cost H2 into the huge complex of energy and car companies
> saying they are ready to go that route (as opposed mainly to the electric
> car, which both industries are opposing). The huge turnover in
> infrastructure from oil to hydrogen will likely not wait for the fuel cell
> to drop in price - it will start with IC engines. It will happen quite
fast
> (H2 loves the ICE) if H2 drops enough in price (from whatever source) and
if
> California and a few other states keep up the pressure.

There is a fatal flaw here, to assume that H2 cost will drop to the present
levels of petroleum fuels. As I understand it, the best possible efficiency
for the "Water Shift Reaction" (C+2H2O -->CO2 + 2H2) is about 80%. To burn
the Hydrogen in a conventional IC engine is an inherent loser, like
borrowing money at 10% to buy long term bonds at 8%

> c. What connection to stoves? If H2 starts gaining momentum because of
a
> low price and an auto-dominated market, it won't be long before it is used
> in all fuel markets - including stoves.

Assume for the moment that H2 production technology is wildly successful,
and that its cost does indeed get down to the present cost of gasoline. It
would still be too expensive, because gasoline is basically too expensive
for stove fuel.

The reason for stoves is that
> raised by Kirk Smith - it solves all (too strong a word?) indoor air
> pollution problems! But won't happen unless there is concern about
health
> (more below on that)

There are two aspects to the "pollution and health hazard problem." One is
the pollutants arising from the fuel, and the other is the pollutants
arising from the cooking process. Consider the cleanest of all cooking
"fuels".... electricity. Frying puts grease aerosols into the living space
air. However hydrogen combustion (perfectly clean in itself) can create
pollution and health concerns by burning cooking residues on the outside of
the pot or frying pan. These pollutants, and the grease aerosols, and
cooking odors, can all be dealt with easily with a stove top hood venting
outside. The advantage of hydrogen is thus more apparent than real.

> d. Why might it happen in developing countries? Because that is where H2
> could be cheapest and where oil is now highest cost and where a natural
gas
> infrastructure doesn't exist. Cheap because of low cost labor, low-cost
> biomass, plentiful sunshine, etc. And because the EU and Japan want their
> H2 to come from RE sources. There is no reason at all to think of huge
> tankers traversing the oceans (half the time empty) if people insist that
> supposedly clean H2 in fact comes from clean (i.e. RE) resources. H2
> production from RE sources has a huge local advantage that our
> Administration has not yet learned.

Producing hydrogen locally from local energy resources is a long way off
into the future. Assume for the moment that we had today such a process
that was economically sound in a Developed Country: how long would it
take to install the infrastructure necessary for Hydrogen "Fuel" to be used
on a widespread basis for basic cooking? That would be a HUGE task.
>
> 3. Now on your main point of the need to push more rapidly on
introduction
> of good stoves. my reply mainly has to do with health issues.
> a). You asked
> >Is Kirk's Article available "on line?" If so, would you have a URL?
>
> RWL: http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/02_smith_3.pdf
>
This article promotes the use of "Factory Fossil Fuel" instead of locally
based Renewable energies. It doesn't promote Hydrogen. It basically assumes
that all biomass stoves are bad, and it does not explore teh benefits
arising from the simple improvement of a smoke stack or an exhaust hood.

> b) I fear that to ask for speed, is to ignore Kirk's warning given in
that
> editorial. He has by far the most expertise on this subject - and he has
> given up on carrying out your recommendation on improved stove
introduction
> at this time.

Has he ever run an "average" stove in a kitchen WITHOUT a smokestack or an
exhaust hood, and then repeated the experiment with a stove designed for
use of a smoke stack and an exhaust hood? I think he would be very
impressed at how healthy the latter condition would be.

> c) I have concluded that he is both right and wrong. I feel we should not
> be introducing a reliance on imported fossil fuel products. But there is
no
> reason to not introduce superior, store bought fuels (strictly for their
> health advantages) if they are locally made (i.e. from RE sources) - even
if
> they cost more. The question is whether the increased costs offset the
> existing costs of poorly performing stoves.

OK.... imagine a simple case where fuel pellets were made in a "local
factory". Having such a uniform fuel would make the stove Designers task
very easy. (The "fuel pellets" could be biomass pellets, reasonably uniform
charcoal, holey briquettes, etc... anything that eliminates many of the
variables that an "average" stove tries to cope with but can't because
there are just too many for a single design to handle.)

> d) Now why is Kirk not in favor of more rapid introduction? I fear that
> the reason is that stove workers (the "stoves" list) has not yet
> demonstrated superiority. I thought I had made a pretty damning statement
> yesterday when I said:
>
> >> Unfortunately, I claim we haven't got one single lab anywhere
> >> in the world equipped to do this - even if we had the money to
> >>conduct the testing.
> >
>
> And you replied:
> >At the risk of goring oxen, why not just do it? I would bet a box of beer
> >that if someone said to someone like Crispin: " Heres what we need, and
if
> >you build it, we will buy 10,000," that he would provide the testing to
> >demonstrate that the stove met Specifications.

RWL: My problem with your response is that you haven't supplied the
> "someone". Maybe Crispin would rise to that challenge - but I would
demand
> pretty good assurances before I would take on such a challenge myself.
> Rather I am afraid we will have to muddle along until we have developed
> enough proof with our own limited testing ability to demand more action.
So
> far we only have proof (IMO) on how bad stoves are.
>
I picked on Crispin, because he is a small successful stove manufacturer,
and I guessed that he would be in 7th Heaven if someone offered him a deal
like this. There are also others, like Lanny Hanson, a "dark stove
horse",who came from nowhere in about 6 months and configured what appears
to be a remarkably effective stove system for certain applications. People
like Crispin and Lanny seem to have a superior "market awareness" and focus
their limited time and money resources on what they have determined their
Intended Market wants.

I would suggest that the reason that Crispin or Lanny have not risen to this
challenge is that nobody has made them such an offer. However, if somebody
would care to make such a firm offer, I am sure that there are many on this
List who would be interested in taking on the challenge. (Myself
included.)

See also comments below.....

Kevin

>
> Ron
>
> Below are some topics I started on. Please feel free to try again if you
> feel I didn't answer something critical.
>
>
> You said today:
>
> a
> > <snip> However, we normally think of
> >"fuel" in its context of "bringing new energy into the system". <snip>
>
> RWL: This definition of "fuel" isn't one I use.

OK.... we should get this straightened out. It is not a trivial matter to
categorize energy sources and fuel types. What about a definition of a fuel
as follows:
"A fuel is a material containing energy that can be released in a useful
manner."

>
> >>
> b.
> <snip>
> > Can we actually buy hydrogen anywhere for $US14 per GJ?
> >
>
> RWL: I have a power point slide showing two citations:..
> Source: SRI Chemical Economics Handbook, 2002, Captive H2
> Source: Chemical Market Reporter, 2/24/03; Merchant H2
> The numbers given are all over the map, but include $2/kg or $14/GJ.
> <snip>

The "stores are closed" at the moment, and I cannot get a quotation on
tanker loads of hydrogen, but I will get a quote in the next few days.
Perhaps others could get quotes for Hydrogen in their area? 1: In tanker
loads. 2: By "on-site generation".
> >
>
> c.
> > <snip> Someone previously posted a vivid example, where a
> >"hydrogen tanker" could only drive 800 miles before it emptied its tank.
> <snip>
>
> RWL: One would not rationally use a truck to go 800 miles - there would
be
> a high pressure pipeline - and maybe liquefaction.

Quite true, but the point here being the low energy density, and teh
difficulty of transporting it. Pipelines are only good where there is a
long term need, and where populations are relatively concentrated.
> >
> <snip>
> d.
> > Hydrogen for cooking appears to be a fatally flawed
> >concept: "Hydrogen it too expensive and cumbersome at the present,
> >but might be feasible if cost effective PV and wind systems become
> >available, but then it would be easier to use the electricity directly."
> >
> RWL: Except that hydrogen might be the best storage option for the
> non-dispatchable PV and wind options - especially when electricity (not
> cooking) is needed.

Storage batteries and inverters would address these concerns.
>
> <snip>
> e.
> >This [talking about zinc] is "possible future technology." Even if it is
> successfully developed
> >to a "wildly successful" level, it would seem to have little
> >application in
> >Third World conditions, where it is difficult to keep a stove pipe clean.
>
> RWL: Have to disagree. We are talking here of something that has few
> moving parts, albeit a very high temperature. After living in Sudan for a
> year - I was amazed at how well they kept their truck fleet running - in
> regions where no one had any electric power. Even if limited to bigger
> villages, the transport of a bag of metal "chips" should be pretty cheap.
> The comparison should be to the transport of cans of propane over much
> larger distances.

OK.... the Sudan example involved relatively few people, and tehy could be
trained for the task. Training a country how to use a very advanced
energy system is another matter entirely. Gender Issues would be a big
factor here.
> >
> <snip>
> e.
> >I am not familiar with this technology [talking about nanotechnology],
but
> I do understand that that it has very interesting possibilities.
>
> (RWL): Again - the huge surprise is that the efficiency of conversion
> could (not yet proven) be as high as 85%. Another name for the technique
is
> "quantum dots".

While there could indeed be a "breakthrough", it is relatively far off.
Biomass fuel is a "here and now" fuel.
> >
>
> f.
> <snip>
> >I think the "bottom line" is that all gas fuels are dangerous, but if
> >handled "properly", there is no danger.
>
> (RWL): We still need to be looking into the special safety properties of
> H2. The "Science" article mostly warned about law suits. The phrase "no
> danger" I can't subscribe to.

Of course there is danger.... but that danger will appear only when the
system is not operated as intended. Some systems will be "more dangerous
than others" because some will require more skill and attention, and will
be relatively easy for a careless or inattentive person to do something
dangerously wrong. Fire itself is very dangerous, but a reasonably skilled
person can utilize it with no danger.
>
>
> g.
> >Now we are talking!! This is the key issue, as I see it:
> >Designing a:
> >1: "stove system"
> >2: " to cook"
> > 3: "cleanly" and
> >4: "efficiently"
> >5: with "solid fuels.
> >
> > On the one hand, this is no problem whatsoever, but on the other hand,
it
> >is a totally impossible task. The MAJOR mistake I see being made
> >is to think that there is such a thing as a "universal stove." There is
no
> >such thing as a "universal stove" because of the gross differences in the
> above 5
> >parameters from site to site. Indeed there are many "perfectly adequate"
> >stoves now readily available all over the World, yet these very same
> >stoves would be miserable failures if they were used in applications for
> >which they were not designed.
>
> (RWL): I don't remember myself or anyone else raising the subject of a
> "universal stove" nor have I been advocating one.

Rogerio was proposing to make one stove. That was the basis for my concern.

> To your list, I must add the concept of "economically" - which you might
> mean by "efficiently" (which is very different in meaning on this list).
> Chimneys seem to be generally an appropriate option - but sometimes not
seen
> to be worth their cost and effort - as we have heard in the last few
weeks.

I would guess that those who do not support the use of chimneys are not
Stove Designers, Combusiton Engineers, or Ventillation Engineers.
>
> h.
> >> I certainly hope we can provide that proof.
> >
> >The proof is all around us, of both successes and failure:
> >1: Some existing stoves are perfectly adequate for their intended
> >application.
> >2: Some stove systems are basically good but fail because of smoke
> >considerations that could be readily cured with the addition of a
chimney
> >or exhaust hood.
> >3: Some stove systems are very much below standards of acceptability, and
> >require "new designs" to get them up to a minimum level of acceptability.
> >
> >I feel that the merits and goodness of "Class1" and "Class 2" stoves are
> >generally overlooked and that it is the "Class 3" stoves that create the
> >general image of the "state of stove technology."
>
> (RWL): Your class 1) stoves are generally not being adopted without
> subsidy - I think those in China may be in this category - as the subsidy
> program seems to have stopped and they are continuing with making pretty
> good stoves. But I haven't yet seen this in print - and it may not be
true.

OK.... is there anyone on this list who makes "Class 1" stoves, and who has
sold them on their own merits, without a subsidy?

> I would like to know much more about how good they are. A.D. Karve
> (clarifying AD to NOT mean "anaerobic digestion" in any of my messages)
has
> reported on how the Indian program was stopped because there apparently
were
> no stoves in this category.

That was one program that was stopped. Perhaps AD could address teh
question: "Are there any stoves in India which are perfectly adequate for
their intended application?"

> Your class 2) stoves are often OK - but many of them have major subsidy
> programs. We have been hearing that chimneys are not being accepted.

I could stick a chimney on a stove not designed to utilize a chimney, and
the results would be unsatisfactory enough that the chimney would not be
accepted. The fact that the chimneys associated with the failed program
plugged up suggests a poor design initially.
>
> So we probably agree on #3 - but I am still worried about the #1 and #2
> categories. I am greatly concerned that the Shell Foundation has begun
big
> introductions of several stoves that may be pretty good - but have never
> been tested - even partially. They could all well be adding to global
> warming and health issue - even though claimed to be in your #1 or #2
> category..

I wouold be very concerned also. People like Lanny and Crispin would never
send a stove to Market without extensive testing. Bureaucrats send stuff
out without testing.
>
>
> > <snip>
>
> i.
> >I think that this (the A.D. karve production of CH4] is a wonderful
system,
> and that it is indeed extremely
> >appropriate for use in its intended application.....
> >
> > There is no fundamental reason that AD's system couldn't
> >> eventually work just as well (meaning cheap) by producing H2.
> >
> >I don't know enough about the hydrogen process, but Mother Nature seem to
> >have a fundamental preference for making CH4 rather than H2.
>
> (RWL): Maybe - but apparently there are bacteria out there already
> producing H2 (can't provide an exact reference - but look for "Mellis" or
> Melis at Berkeley). But know that there are researchers figuring how to
> maximize the H2 production process better now. Can't be too much harder
> than the amazing job chlorophyll does in producing O2.

H2 might be produced in this fashion, but if it was, it would probably be
of more value for other uses. (For example, like oil seed.)
>
> j. <SNIP>
> >CO poisoning is not a concern with a properly designed and vented stove.
>
> (RWL - Sorry - can't agree - too many annual CO deaths. In any case, CO
> also is a global warming contributor.
>
Certainly, there are CO deaths, but are there any associated with properly
designed and vented stoves?

> k.
> >Solar PV can now do this [ talking about small fuels cells].
>
> RWL: Not at night and batteries not for many hours a day. I hope you are
> not predicting that small fuels cells can't make it in the marketplace.
> >
There is no doubt in my mind that there will be some market applications
where small fuel cells could be economically viable. However, I feel these
will be special niche markets, and that it will be very unlikely that tehy
will be economic for the Stoves markets.
> >
> >
> <snip>
> l.
> >I think this [RWL: I guess "Harmon's addition on the start-up company
using
> biomass for various chemical products] is a very important parameter...
> indigenous energy sourcing.
> >Tree plantations and solar farms 100 miles away are inherently less
> >efficient ways of delivering energy to the point of use.
>
> RWL: I guess we agree - but no reason to bring in the term "100 miles" I
> hope from anything I have said. Tree plantations and PV should hopefully
be
> within meters of users.

Yes indeed. Regrettably, there have been biomass energy system failures
because wood chips had to be trucked too great a distance for the project
to be economic.
> >
>
> <snip>
> >
> >
> Here, as you started on point 4) is where I gave up to try to summarize
> our general disagreements. As I said above - you or anyone else are free
> to ask me for any response to a response. Not trying to duck a dispute
> here.

Ron, it is not so much a question of disagreement, but of differing views.
I think we all want to see the greatest good done in the shortest time, and
our differing views reflect the plethora of options, and the uncertainties
associated with them. There is also a degree of working at "cross
purposes", eg, Bush's Hydrogen Bill diverts effort and resources from what
the Stoves Lists generally wants to do.

Best Wishes,

Kevin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jul 15 03:04:08 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: About technology transfer
Message-ID: <TUE.15.JUL.2003.040408.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Rogerio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda" <rmiranda@inet.com.br>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] About technology transfer

> Kevin: below my response to your Email from 08/07/03 -,
>
> Kevin Chisholm wrote
> Dear Rogerio
>
> >My views are basically that it is impossible to design a good "Universal
> >Stove", because the "total system" in which they work is very different,
and
> >not at all "Universal."
....del....
>
> Rogerio: I was refering to those who need a woodstove among the 2 billion
> out there without modern household fuel. I believe the majority of those
> are in the tropics, and also only to those who use wood as fuel.

OK.... 1: The fuel is to be wood.
What size of wood? What type of wood? What moisture content? These all
effect the burning characteristics.
2: What heat release rate is required of the stove?
3: What cooking job is to be done?
Etc...
>
> You are right that different types of wood, different humidity and
> different operators can produce so many different combustions dynamics.
> However considering open fires, the trick is to eliminate as much
> combustion variables as possible and concentrate in three basic elements
> for a good woodfire: good fuel, right amount of oxygen and enough heat to
> ignite and hold the fire. In this respect Dr Larry Winiarsky with
> his simple and clever rocket stove, has made just that, eliminate many
> variables and concentrated in what is important for a woodfire. Of
> course, it is not yet perfect, but we made a good progress forward.
>
> Now, from "the rocket stove" and it variations of accessories ( full
> covered griddle or semi open griddle, oven or no oven, chimney or no
> chimney, water heater or no water heater, etc) I believe is leading us
> toward a "universal stove".

I would suggest not. There are two basic "stove components", the "combustion
component" and the "cooker component"

I would suggest that Larry's job (or Crispin's, or Lanny's) would be very
much easier if he was asked to design a "modular system", where he designed
a "combustion system" for several "standard fuels" and which had several
different outputs. This "combustor module" could then be added to various
"cooker modules". You would then end up with a "family of solutions" to your
cooking problems. This is what I mean when I say that there is no single
stove solution.... there are simply too many local variables.
>
>
> >Kevin: To view your example of the Brazilian Stove from a
> >different light..... it took 100 years for it to become widely
accepted...
>
> Rogerio: It took less than 100 years to be accepted. I guess it started
> about 100 years ago, but elderly people which I have questioning about it,
> remember this stove being used since before the second world war.

OK.... that is still 40 years.... a very long time.

Best wishes for every success with the good that you wish to accomplish.

Kevin
>

From stephen.gitonga at UNDP.ORG Tue Jul 15 13:02:14 2003
From: stephen.gitonga at UNDP.ORG (stephen.gitonga)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <TUE.15.JUL.2003.130214.0400.STEPHEN.GITONGA@UNDP.ORG>

Dear Stovers

The information below quoted from: http://www.mobilerefinery.com/water2fire.htm might
be of interest in the hydrogen /stoves debate.

For information purposes only

Stephen Gitonga
-------------------------------------------
WATER2FIRE
Water2Fire generation for all kinds of cooking, heating, metal industry and farming
(heating for green house) State-of-the-art-technology, Water2Fire generation for all
kinds of cooking and industry application. It can replace Lpg/cng as alternative
source of sustainable energy with water, H20.

This is a major breakthrough, in the safe application of hydrogen as sustainable and

alternative source of energy. Our generators are ecofriendly and more economical to
fossil based Lpg and cng. Low cost,zero emission of Ghg and safe to use. Water is
broken into hydrogen and oxygen, at will by electrolysis for combustion. No retention
and storage of hydrogen required, thereby making our generators very safe.

By using our Water2Fire generators, you help save our Planet earth from environmental

disaster and also save money. Please help the environment by expediting the
transition, from fossil fuel based economy to a hydrogen based economy, as endorsed
by President George Bush recently. As you are fully aware that the Global Warming
problem is very acute from the recent Johannesburg Earth Summit.

Your Planet also needs to be sustained and we should be responsible to the next
generation for their Green Planet, by helping to mitigate the production of Green
House Gas, like Carbon Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and other toxic
materials.
H/P: +65 - 9108 3278
Fax: +65 - 6293 5162, 6341 0179
Email: oilexchange@pacific.net.sg
oilexchange@mobilerefinery.com
--------------------------------------------------------

Ron Larson wrote:

> Kevin (cc stoves)-
>
> I am starting over after getting part way through a response, as I think we
> are talking past each other and this round robin is getting much too long
> for clarity. Yesterday's start on a reply is at the end.
>
> 1. I think your main point is that we (everyone and maybe especially those
> on "stoves") are wasting time while we are not installing existing improved
> (and sufficiently good) stove products. If I haven't framed your concern
> correctly please let me know. You are not really writing about, or
> interested in, hydrogen - as it looks too costly and too far off. I can
> sympathize with much of both positions and believe you will have much
> support on "stoves" for this position.
>
> 2. I feel a need to say just a bit more about both these parts of your
> concerns and then I suggest we separate out the two parts, if anyone wishes
> to join in.
>
> 3. Re hydrogen - I confess I brought this up mainly because I have been
> putting a lot of time on the subject and thought it needed to be included in
> the collection of alternative fuels under discussion. I am not promoting H2
> as a near term solution to any stove problem. The reason for my looking at
> the subject is that (IMO) it is by far the most important influence on the
> present US program on renewable energy - a policy subject I have worked on
> for 30 years. I am doing this as the principal board member of the American
> Solar Energy Society (ASES) working on an H2 white paper due out fairly
> soon. ASES (IMO) is the main environmental/energy group taking on the
> administration on this topic.
> a. Why the "most important influence"? because our administration has
> decreed so - it was a bombshell in Bush's State of the Union Address in
> February - many hundreds of billions (not millions) of Federal dollars are
> on the line. It appears to ASES that support for the newly expanded H2
> program is coming out of the existing RE program at DoE. We are mad, as it
> appears that the administration is lining up those hundreds of billions for
> the coal and nuclear industries. (Fortunately the EU and Japan have also
> committed this past few months to the same switch - but they are promoting
> H2 only from renewables.)
> b. What future H2 role for stoves? It all depends on developments like
> that in Wisconsin which Harmon brought to our attention. It likely won't
> happen at all soon - but it could - when lots of bright people start trying
> to feed lower cost H2 into the huge complex of energy and car companies
> saying they are ready to go that route (as opposed mainly to the electric
> car, which both industries are opposing). The huge turnover in
> infrastructure from oil to hydrogen will likely not wait for the fuel cell
> to drop in price - it will start with IC engines. It will happen quite fast
> (H2 loves the ICE) if H2 drops enough in price (from whatever source) and if
> California and a few other states keep up the pressure.
> c. What connection to stoves? If H2 starts gaining momentum because of a
> low price and an auto-dominated market, it won't be long before it is used
> in all fuel markets - including stoves. The reason for stoves is that
> raised by Kirk Smith - it solves all (too strong a word?) indoor air
> pollution problems! But won't happen unless there is concern about health
> (more below on that)
> d. Why might it happen in developing countries? Because that is where H2
> could be cheapest and where oil is now highest cost and where a natural gas
> infrastructure doesn't exist. Cheap because of low cost labor, low-cost
> biomass, plentiful sunshine, etc. And because the EU and Japan want their
> H2 to come from RE sources. There is no reason at all to think of huge
> tankers traversing the oceans (half the time empty) if people insist that
> supposedly clean H2 in fact comes from clean (i.e. RE) resources. H2
> production from RE sources has a huge local advantage that our
> Administration has not yet learned.
>
> 3. Now on your main point of the need to push more rapidly on introduction
> of good stoves. my reply mainly has to do with health issues.
> a). You asked
> >Is Kirk's Article available "on line?" If so, would you have a URL?
>
> RWL: http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/02_smith_3.pdf
>
> b) I fear that to ask for speed, is to ignore Kirk's warning given in that
> editorial. He has by far the most expertise on this subject - and he has
> given up on carrying out your recommendation on improved stove introduction
> at this time.
> c) I have concluded that he is both right and wrong. I feel we should not
> be introducing a reliance on imported fossil fuel products. But there is no
> reason to not introduce superior, store bought fuels (strictly for their
> health advantages) if they are locally made (i.e. from RE sources) - even if
> they cost more. The question is whether the increased costs offset the
> existing costs of poorly performing stoves.
> d) Now why is Kirk not in favor of more rapid introduction? I fear that
> the reason is that stove workers (the "stoves" list) has not yet
> demonstrated superiority. I thought I had made a pretty damning statement
> yesterday when I said:
>
> >> Unfortunately, I claim we haven't got one single lab anywhere
> >> in the world equipped to do this - even if we had the money to
> >>conduct the testing.
> >
>
> And you replied:
> >At the risk of goring oxen, why not just do it? I would bet a box of beer
> >that if someone said to someone like Crispin: " Heres what we need, and if
> >you build it, we will buy 10,000," that he would provide the testing to
> >demonstrate that the stove met Specifications.
>
> RWL: My problem with your response is that you haven't supplied the
> "someone". Maybe Crispin would rise to that challenge - but I would demand
> pretty good assurances before I would take on such a challenge myself.
> Rather I am afraid we will have to muddle along until we have developed
> enough proof with our own limited testing ability to demand more action. So
> far we only have proof (IMO) on how bad stoves are.
>
> Ron
>
> Below are some topics I started on. Please feel free to try again if you
> feel I didn't answer something critical.
>
> You said today:
>
> a
> > <snip> However, we normally think of
> >"fuel" in its context of "bringing new energy into the system". <snip>
>
> RWL: This definition of "fuel" isn't one I use.
>
> >>
> b.
> <snip>
> > Can we actually buy hydrogen anywhere for $US14 per GJ?
> >
>
> RWL: I have a power point slide showing two citations:..
> Source: SRI Chemical Economics Handbook, 2002, Captive H2
> Source: Chemical Market Reporter, 2/24/03; Merchant H2
> The numbers given are all over the map, but include $2/kg or $14/GJ.
> <snip>
> >
>
> c.
> > <snip> Someone previously posted a vivid example, where a
> >"hydrogen tanker" could only drive 800 miles before it emptied its tank.
> <snip>
>
> RWL: One would not rationally use a truck to go 800 miles - there would be
> a high pressure pipeline - and maybe liquefaction.
> >
> <snip>
> d.
> > Hydrogen for cooking appears to be a fatally flawed
> >concept: "Hydrogen it too expensive and cumbersome at the present,
> >but might be feasible if cost effective PV and wind systems become
> >available, but then it would be easier to use the electricity directly."
> >
> RWL: Except that hydrogen might be the best storage option for the
> non-dispatchable PV and wind options - especially when electricity (not
> cooking) is needed.
>
> <snip>
> e.
> >This [talking about zinc] is "possible future technology." Even if it is
> successfully developed
> >to a "wildly successful" level, it would seem to have little
> >application in
> >Third World conditions, where it is difficult to keep a stove pipe clean.
>
> RWL: Have to disagree. We are talking here of something that has few
> moving parts, albeit a very high temperature. After living in Sudan for a
> year - I was amazed at how well they kept their truck fleet running - in
> regions where no one had any electric power. Even if limited to bigger
> villages, the transport of a bag of metal "chips" should be pretty cheap.
> The comparison should be to the transport of cans of propane over much
> larger distances.
> >
> <snip>
> e.
> >I am not familiar with this technology [talking about nanotechnology], but
> I do understand that that it has very interesting possibilities.
>
> (RWL): Again - the huge surprise is that the efficiency of conversion
> could (not yet proven) be as high as 85%. Another name for the technique is
> "quantum dots".
> >
>
> f.
> <snip>
> >I think the "bottom line" is that all gas fuels are dangerous, but if
> >handled "properly", there is no danger.
>
> (RWL): We still need to be looking into the special safety properties of
> H2. The "Science" article mostly warned about law suits. The phrase "no
> danger" I can't subscribe to.
>
> g.
> >Now we are talking!! This is the key issue, as I see it:
> >Designing a:
> >1: "stove system"
> >2: " to cook"
> > 3: "cleanly" and
> >4: "efficiently"
> >5: with "solid fuels.
> >
> > On the one hand, this is no problem whatsoever, but on the other hand, it
> >is a totally impossible task. The MAJOR mistake I see being made
> >is to think that there is such a thing as a "universal stove." There is no
> >such thing as a "universal stove" because of the gross differences in the
> above 5
> >parameters from site to site. Indeed there are many "perfectly adequate"
> >stoves now readily available all over the World, yet these very same
> >stoves would be miserable failures if they were used in applications for
> >which they were not designed.
>
> (RWL): I don't remember myself or anyone else raising the subject of a
> "universal stove" nor have I been advocating one.
> To your list, I must add the concept of "economically" - which you might
> mean by "efficiently" (which is very different in meaning on this list).
> Chimneys seem to be generally an appropriate option - but sometimes not seen
> to be worth their cost and effort - as we have heard in the last few weeks.
>
> h.
> >> I certainly hope we can provide that proof.
> >
> >The proof is all around us, of both successes and failure:
> >1: Some existing stoves are perfectly adequate for their intended
> >application.
> >2: Some stove systems are basically good but fail because of smoke
> >considerations that could be readily cured with the addition of a chimney
> >or exhaust hood.
> >3: Some stove systems are very much below standards of acceptability, and
> >require "new designs" to get them up to a minimum level of acceptability.
> >
> >I feel that the merits and goodness of "Class1" and "Class 2" stoves are
> >generally overlooked and that it is the "Class 3" stoves that create the
> >general image of the "state of stove technology."
>
> (RWL): Your class 1) stoves are generally not being adopted without
> subsidy - I think those in China may be in this category - as the subsidy
> program seems to have stopped and they are continuing with making pretty
> good stoves. But I haven't yet seen this in print - and it may not be true.
> I would like to know much more about how good they are. A.D. Karve
> (clarifying AD to NOT mean "anaerobic digestion" in any of my messages) has
> reported on how the Indian program was stopped because there apparently were
> no stoves in this category.
> Your class 2) stoves are often OK - but many of them have major subsidy
> programs. We have been hearing that chimneys are not being accepted.
>
> So we probably agree on #3 - but I am still worried about the #1 and #2
> categories. I am greatly concerned that the Shell Foundation has begun big
> introductions of several stoves that may be pretty good - but have never
> been tested - even partially. They could all well be adding to global
> warming and health issue - even though claimed to be in your #1 or #2
> category..
>
> > <snip>
>
> i.
> >I think that this (the A.D. karve production of CH4] is a wonderful system,
> and that it is indeed extremely
> >appropriate for use in its intended application.....
> >
> > There is no fundamental reason that AD's system couldn't
> >> eventually work just as well (meaning cheap) by producing H2.
> >
> >I don't know enough about the hydrogen process, but Mother Nature seem to
> >have a fundamental preference for making CH4 rather than H2.
>
> (RWL): Maybe - but apparently there are bacteria out there already
> producing H2 (can't provide an exact reference - but look for "Mellis" or
> Melis at Berkeley). But know that there are researchers figuring how to
> maximize the H2 production process better now. Can't be too much harder
> than the amazing job chlorophyll does in producing O2.
>
> j. <SNIP>
> >CO poisoning is not a concern with a properly designed and vented stove.
>
> (RWL - Sorry - can't agree - too many annual CO deaths. In any case, CO
> also is a global warming contributor.
>
> k.
> >Solar PV can now do this [ talking about small fuels cells].
>
> RWL: Not at night and batteries not for many hours a day. I hope you are
> not predicting that small fuels cells can't make it in the marketplace.
> >
> >
> >
> <snip>
> l.
> >I think this [RWL: I guess "Harmon's addition on the start-up company using
> biomass for various chemical products] is a very important parameter...
> indigenous energy sourcing.
> >Tree plantations and solar farms 100 miles away are inherently less
> >efficient ways of delivering energy to the point of use.
>
> RWL: I guess we agree - but no reason to bring in the term "100 miles" I
> hope from anything I have said. Tree plantations and PV should hopefully be
> within meters of users.
> >
>
> <snip>
> >
> >
> Here, as you started on point 4) is where I gave up to try to summarize
> our general disagreements. As I said above - you or anyone else are free
> to ask me for any response to a response. Not trying to duck a dispute
> here.
>
> Ron

From brunom1 at YUCOM.BE Tue Jul 15 16:49:22 2003
From: brunom1 at YUCOM.BE (Bruno M.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
In-Reply-To: <3F143396.77F0D85B@undp.org>
Message-ID: <TUE.15.JUL.2003.224922.0200.BRUNOM1@YUCOM.BE>

Dear Stephen,

Thanks Steven for bringing this info to us.
It is indeed info about H2 (and about stoves),
and we should be open minded and exam every option,
but, but,
there is nothing ecofriendly or sustainable about this one.
it's just marketing bullsh*t.
Why?
Ask yourself: how is the electrolyser fed? By electricity? Yes
Electricity from what and were? A Dino-fueled electricity-central?

IMHO it is only a way to spend / loose more energy,
( plus investment cost)
where only the last step is +- pollution free, because
burning the H2 ( and the O2?) gives ( almost) only water ( vapor).
The pollution ( greenhouse gasses etc ) or produced off site.

So by follow their way, their is even more energy lost
because they ad a step or 2 between dino-sause and kitchen stove;
every energy convertion will show a loss, not a gain of energy;
Also no advantage for 99 % of the 3? world population.
( most even have no electricity to run it )

They use H2 as an ( unnesesary in between ) carrier of energy not a source.

Conclusion they should be sued for mis use of green statements,
misinformation etc.
Don't you agree?

Greets
Bruno Meersman
========================

At 19:02 15/07/2003, STEPHEN wrote:
>Dear Stovers
>
>The information below quoted from:
>http://www.mobilerefinery.com/water2fire.htm might
>be of interest in the hydrogen /stoves debate.
>
>For information purposes only
>
>Stephen Gitonga
>-------------------------------------------
>WATER2FIRE
>Water2Fire generation for all kinds of cooking, heating, metal industry
>and farming
>(heating for green house) State-of-the-art-technology, Water2Fire
>generation for all
>kinds of cooking and industry application. It can replace Lpg/cng as
>alternative
>source of sustainable energy with water, H20.
>
> This is a major breakthrough, in the safe application of hydrogen
> as sustainable and
>
>alternative source of energy. Our generators are ecofriendly and more
>economical to
>fossil based Lpg and cng. Low cost,zero emission of Ghg and safe to use.
>Water is
>broken into hydrogen and oxygen, at will by electrolysis for combustion.
>No retention
>and storage of hydrogen required, thereby making our generators very safe.
>
> By using our Water2Fire generators, you help save our Planet earth
> from environmental
>
>disaster and also save money. Please help the environment by expediting the
>transition, from fossil fuel based economy to a hydrogen based economy,
>as endorsed
>by President George Bush recently. As you are fully aware that the Global
>Warming
>problem is very acute from the recent Johannesburg Earth Summit.
>
>Your Planet also needs to be sustained and we should be responsible to
>the next
>generation for their Green Planet, by helping to mitigate the
>production of Green
>House Gas, like Carbon Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and
>other toxic
>materials.
>H/P: +65 - 9108 3278
>Fax: +65 - 6293 5162, 6341 0179
>Email: oilexchange@pacific.net.sg
> oilexchange@mobilerefinery.com
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>Ron Larson wrote:
>
> > Kevin (cc stoves)-
> >
> > I am starting over after getting part way through a response,
> as I think we
> > are talking past each other and this round robin is getting much too long
> > for clarity. Yesterday's start on a reply is at the end.
> >
> > 1. I think your main point is that we (everyone and maybe
> especially those
> > on "stoves") are wasting time while we are not installing existing improved
> > (and sufficiently good) stove products. If I haven't framed your concern
> > correctly please let me know. You are not really writing about, or
> > interested in, hydrogen - as it looks too costly and too far off. I can
> > sympathize with much of both positions and believe you will have much
> > support on "stoves" for this position.
> >
> > 2. I feel a need to say just a bit more about both these parts of your
> > concerns and then I suggest we separate out the two parts, if anyone wishes
> > to join in.
> >
> > 3. Re hydrogen - I confess I brought this up mainly because I have been
> > putting a lot of time on the subject and thought it needed to be
> included in
> > the collection of alternative fuels under discussion. I am not
> promoting H2
> > as a near term solution to any stove problem. The reason for my looking at
> > the subject is that (IMO) it is by far the most important influence on the
> > present US program on renewable energy - a policy subject I have worked on
> > for 30 years. I am doing this as the principal board member of the
> American
> > Solar Energy Society (ASES) working on an H2 white paper due out fairly
> > soon. ASES (IMO) is the main environmental/energy group taking on the
> > administration on this topic.
> > a. Why the "most important influence"? because our
> administration has
> > decreed so - it was a bombshell in Bush's State of the Union Address in
> > February - many hundreds of billions (not millions) of Federal dollars are
> > on the line. It appears to ASES that support for the newly expanded H2
> > program is coming out of the existing RE program at DoE. We are mad, as it
> > appears that the administration is lining up those hundreds of billions for
> > the coal and nuclear industries. (Fortunately the EU and Japan have also
> > committed this past few months to the same switch - but they are promoting
> > H2 only from renewables.)
> > b. What future H2 role for stoves? It all depends on
> developments like
> > that in Wisconsin which Harmon brought to our attention. It likely won't
> > happen at all soon - but it could - when lots of bright people start trying
> > to feed lower cost H2 into the huge complex of energy and car companies
> > saying they are ready to go that route (as opposed mainly to the electric
> > car, which both industries are opposing). The huge turnover in
> > infrastructure from oil to hydrogen will likely not wait for the fuel cell
> > to drop in price - it will start with IC engines. It will happen quite
> fast
> > (H2 loves the ICE) if H2 drops enough in price (from whatever source)
> and if
> > California and a few other states keep up the pressure.
> > c. What connection to stoves? If H2 starts gaining momentum
> because of a
> > low price and an auto-dominated market, it won't be long before it is used
> > in all fuel markets - including stoves. The reason for stoves is that
> > raised by Kirk Smith - it solves all (too strong a word?) indoor air
> > pollution problems! But won't happen unless there is concern about health
> > (more below on that)
> > d. Why might it happen in developing countries? Because that
> is where H2
> > could be cheapest and where oil is now highest cost and where a natural gas
> > infrastructure doesn't exist. Cheap because of low cost labor, low-cost
> > biomass, plentiful sunshine, etc. And because the EU and Japan want their
> > H2 to come from RE sources. There is no reason at all to think of huge
> > tankers traversing the oceans (half the time empty) if people insist that
> > supposedly clean H2 in fact comes from clean (i.e. RE) resources. H2
> > production from RE sources has a huge local advantage that our
> > Administration has not yet learned.
> >
> > 3. Now on your main point of the need to push more rapidly on introduction
> > of good stoves. my reply mainly has to do with health issues.
> > a). You asked
> > >Is Kirk's Article available "on line?" If so, would you have a URL?
> >
> > RWL:
> http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/02_smith_3.pdf
> >
> > b) I fear that to ask for speed, is to ignore Kirk's warning
> given in that
> > editorial. He has by far the most expertise on this subject - and he has
> > given up on carrying out your recommendation on improved stove introduction
> > at this time.
> > c) I have concluded that he is both right and wrong. I feel we
> should not
> > be introducing a reliance on imported fossil fuel products. But there
> is no
> > reason to not introduce superior, store bought fuels (strictly for their
> > health advantages) if they are locally made (i.e. from RE sources) -
> even if
> > they cost more. The question is whether the increased costs offset the
> > existing costs of poorly performing stoves.
> > d) Now why is Kirk not in favor of more rapid introduction? I
> fear that
> > the reason is that stove workers (the "stoves" list) has not yet
> > demonstrated superiority. I thought I had made a pretty damning statement
> > yesterday when I said:
> >
> > >> Unfortunately, I claim we haven't got one single lab anywhere
> > >> in the world equipped to do this - even if we had the money to
> > >>conduct the testing.
> > >
> >
> > And you replied:
> > >At the risk of goring oxen, why not just do it? I would bet a box of beer
> > >that if someone said to someone like Crispin: " Heres what we need,
> and if
> > >you build it, we will buy 10,000," that he would provide the testing to
> > >demonstrate that the stove met Specifications.
> >
> > RWL: My problem with your response is that you haven't
> supplied the
> > "someone". Maybe Crispin would rise to that challenge - but I would demand
> > pretty good assurances before I would take on such a challenge myself.
> > Rather I am afraid we will have to muddle along until we have
> developed
> > enough proof with our own limited testing ability to demand more
> action. So
> > far we only have proof (IMO) on how bad stoves are.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > Below are some topics I started on. Please feel free to try again if you
> > feel I didn't answer something critical.
> >
> > You said today:
> >
> > a
> > > <snip> However, we normally think of
> > >"fuel" in its context of "bringing new energy into the system". <snip>
> >
> > RWL: This definition of "fuel" isn't one I use.
> >
> > >>
> > b.
> > <snip>
> > > Can we actually buy hydrogen anywhere for $US14 per GJ?
> > >
> >
> > RWL: I have a power point slide showing two citations:..
> > Source: SRI Chemical Economics Handbook, 2002, Captive H2
> > Source: Chemical Market Reporter, 2/24/03; Merchant H2
> > The numbers given are all over the map, but include $2/kg or
> $14/GJ.
> > <snip>
> > >
> >
> > c.
> > > <snip> Someone previously posted a vivid example, where a
> > >"hydrogen tanker" could only drive 800 miles before it emptied its tank.
> > <snip>
> >
> > RWL: One would not rationally use a truck to go 800 miles -
> there would be
> > a high pressure pipeline - and maybe liquefaction.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > d.
> > > Hydrogen for cooking appears to be a fatally flawed
> > >concept: "Hydrogen it too expensive and cumbersome at the present,
> > >but might be feasible if cost effective PV and wind systems become
> > >available, but then it would be easier to use the electricity directly."
> > >
> > RWL: Except that hydrogen might be the best storage option for the
> > non-dispatchable PV and wind options - especially when electricity (not
> > cooking) is needed.
> >
> > <snip>
> > e.
> > >This [talking about zinc] is "possible future technology." Even if it is
> > successfully developed
> > >to a "wildly successful" level, it would seem to have little
> > >application in
> > >Third World conditions, where it is difficult to keep a stove pipe clean.
> >
> > RWL: Have to disagree. We are talking here of something that
> has few
> > moving parts, albeit a very high temperature. After living in Sudan for a
> > year - I was amazed at how well they kept their truck fleet running - in
> > regions where no one had any electric power. Even if limited to bigger
> > villages, the transport of a bag of metal "chips" should be pretty cheap.
> > The comparison should be to the transport of cans of propane over much
> > larger distances.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > e.
> > >I am not familiar with this technology [talking about
> nanotechnology], but
> > I do understand that that it has very interesting possibilities.
> >
> > (RWL): Again - the huge surprise is that the efficiency of
> conversion
> > could (not yet proven) be as high as 85%. Another name for the
> technique is
> > "quantum dots".
> > >
> >
> > f.
> > <snip>
> > >I think the "bottom line" is that all gas fuels are dangerous, but if
> > >handled "properly", there is no danger.
> >
> > (RWL): We still need to be looking into the special safety
> properties of
> > H2. The "Science" article mostly warned about law suits. The phrase "no
> > danger" I can't subscribe to.
> >
> > g.
> > >Now we are talking!! This is the key issue, as I see it:
> > >Designing a:
> > >1: "stove system"
> > >2: " to cook"
> > > 3: "cleanly" and
> > >4: "efficiently"
> > >5: with "solid fuels.
> > >
> > > On the one hand, this is no problem whatsoever, but on the other hand, it
> > >is a totally impossible task. The MAJOR mistake I see being made
> > >is to think that there is such a thing as a "universal stove." There is no
> > >such thing as a "universal stove" because of the gross differences in the
> > above 5
> > >parameters from site to site. Indeed there are many "perfectly adequate"
> > >stoves now readily available all over the World, yet these very same
> > >stoves would be miserable failures if they were used in applications for
> > >which they were not designed.
> >
> > (RWL): I don't remember myself or anyone else raising the
> subject of a
> > "universal stove" nor have I been advocating one.
> > To your list, I must add the concept of "economically" - which
> you might
> > mean by "efficiently" (which is very different in meaning on this list).
> > Chimneys seem to be generally an appropriate option - but sometimes not
> seen
> > to be worth their cost and effort - as we have heard in the last few weeks.
> >
> > h.
> > >> I certainly hope we can provide that proof.
> > >
> > >The proof is all around us, of both successes and failure:
> > >1: Some existing stoves are perfectly adequate for their intended
> > >application.
> > >2: Some stove systems are basically good but fail because of smoke
> > >considerations that could be readily cured with the addition of a chimney
> > >or exhaust hood.
> > >3: Some stove systems are very much below standards of acceptability, and
> > >require "new designs" to get them up to a minimum level of acceptability.
> > >
> > >I feel that the merits and goodness of "Class1" and "Class 2" stoves are
> > >generally overlooked and that it is the "Class 3" stoves that create the
> > >general image of the "state of stove technology."
> >
> > (RWL): Your class 1) stoves are generally not being adopted
> without
> > subsidy - I think those in China may be in this category - as the subsidy
> > program seems to have stopped and they are continuing with making pretty
> > good stoves. But I haven't yet seen this in print - and it may not be
> true.
> > I would like to know much more about how good they are. A.D. Karve
> > (clarifying AD to NOT mean "anaerobic digestion" in any of my messages) has
> > reported on how the Indian program was stopped because there apparently
> were
> > no stoves in this category.
> > Your class 2) stoves are often OK - but many of them have major
> subsidy
> > programs. We have been hearing that chimneys are not being accepted.
> >
> > So we probably agree on #3 - but I am still worried about the
> #1 and #2
> > categories. I am greatly concerned that the Shell Foundation has begun big
> > introductions of several stoves that may be pretty good - but have never
> > been tested - even partially. They could all well be adding to global
> > warming and health issue - even though claimed to be in your #1 or #2
> > category..
> >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > i.
> > >I think that this (the A.D. karve production of CH4] is a wonderful
> system,
> > and that it is indeed extremely
> > >appropriate for use in its intended application.....
> > >
> > > There is no fundamental reason that AD's system couldn't
> > >> eventually work just as well (meaning cheap) by producing H2.
> > >
> > >I don't know enough about the hydrogen process, but Mother Nature seem to
> > >have a fundamental preference for making CH4 rather than H2.
> >
> > (RWL): Maybe - but apparently there are bacteria out there already
> > producing H2 (can't provide an exact reference - but look for "Mellis" or
> > Melis at Berkeley). But know that there are researchers figuring how to
> > maximize the H2 production process better now. Can't be too much harder
> > than the amazing job chlorophyll does in producing O2.
> >
> > j. <SNIP>
> > >CO poisoning is not a concern with a properly designed and vented stove.
> >
> > (RWL - Sorry - can't agree - too many annual CO deaths. In any
> case, CO
> > also is a global warming contributor.
> >
> > k.
> > >Solar PV can now do this [ talking about small fuels cells].
> >
> > RWL: Not at night and batteries not for many hours a day. I
> hope you are
> > not predicting that small fuels cells can't make it in the marketplace.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > <snip>
> > l.
> > >I think this [RWL: I guess "Harmon's addition on the start-up company
> using
> > biomass for various chemical products] is a very important parameter...
> > indigenous energy sourcing.
> > >Tree plantations and solar farms 100 miles away are inherently less
> > >efficient ways of delivering energy to the point of use.
> >
> > RWL: I guess we agree - but no reason to bring in the term
> "100 miles" I
> > hope from anything I have said. Tree plantations and PV should hopefully be
> > within meters of users.
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > Here, as you started on point 4) is where I gave up to try to summarize
> > our general disagreements. As I said above - you or anyone else are free
> > to ask me for any response to a response. Not trying to duck a dispute
> > here.
> >
> > Ron

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\^/>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --
To reply to Bruno : mailto:brunom1@yucom.be

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Jul 16 00:48:55 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.014855.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Stephen

I contacted the "Water2fire" people, and basically, they make an industrial
hydrogen and oxygen generator based on electrolysis by Utility Power. It
seems that their major thrust of business is the welding and cutting market,
where their big advantage is the replacement of acetylene.

Basically, the smaller electrolyser produces about 1680 litres of hydrogen
per hour, and the power consumption is indicated at 12 amps and 240 VAC, 3
phase. I don't know what the cost works out to but if it is on the "high
side", it may simply be that the cost is adequately low to compete
favourably with acetylene. I am sorry but I do not have conversion factors
to determine power conversion efficiency. (Power to produce the 1680 litres
would be about 5 kw-hr)

BTW, a cylinder of hydrogen containing 5.41 cubic meters of H2 at STP costs
$C61.45 here in Nova Scotia. Tankwagon prices would obviously be much lower.

Kindest regards,

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "stephen.gitonga" <stephen.gitonga@UNDP.ORG>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

> Dear Stovers
>
> The information below quoted from:
http://www.mobilerefinery.com/water2fire.htm might
> be of interest in the hydrogen /stoves debate.
>
> For information purposes only
>
> Stephen Gitonga
> -------------------------------------------
> WATER2FIRE
> Water2Fire generation for all kinds of cooking, heating, metal industry
and farming
> (heating for green house) State-of-the-art-technology, Water2Fire
generation for all
> kinds of cooking and industry application. It can replace Lpg/cng as
alternative
> source of sustainable energy with water, H20.
>
> This is a major breakthrough, in the safe application of hydrogen as
sustainable and
>
> alternative source of energy. Our generators are ecofriendly and more
economical to
> fossil based Lpg and cng. Low cost,zero emission of Ghg and safe to use.
Water is
> broken into hydrogen and oxygen, at will by electrolysis for combustion.
No retention
> and storage of hydrogen required, thereby making our generators very
safe.
>
> By using our Water2Fire generators, you help save our Planet earth from
environmental
>
> disaster and also save money. Please help the environment by expediting
the
> transition, from fossil fuel based economy to a hydrogen based economy,
as endorsed
> by President George Bush recently. As you are fully aware that the Global
Warming
> problem is very acute from the recent Johannesburg Earth Summit.
>
> Your Planet also needs to be sustained and we should be responsible to the
next
> generation for their Green Planet, by helping to mitigate the production
of Green
> House Gas, like Carbon Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and
other toxic
> materials.
> H/P: +65 - 9108 3278
> Fax: +65 - 6293 5162, 6341 0179
> Email: oilexchange@pacific.net.sg
> oilexchange@mobilerefinery.com
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ron Larson wrote:
>
> > Kevin (cc stoves)-
> >
> > I am starting over after getting part way through a response, as
I think we
> > are talking past each other and this round robin is getting much too
long
> > for clarity. Yesterday's start on a reply is at the end.
> >
> > 1. I think your main point is that we (everyone and maybe
especially those
> > on "stoves") are wasting time while we are not installing existing
improved
> > (and sufficiently good) stove products. If I haven't framed your
concern
> > correctly please let me know. You are not really writing about, or
> > interested in, hydrogen - as it looks too costly and too far off. I can
> > sympathize with much of both positions and believe you will have much
> > support on "stoves" for this position.
> >
> > 2. I feel a need to say just a bit more about both these parts of your
> > concerns and then I suggest we separate out the two parts, if anyone
wishes
> > to join in.
> >
> > 3. Re hydrogen - I confess I brought this up mainly because I have been
> > putting a lot of time on the subject and thought it needed to be
included in
> > the collection of alternative fuels under discussion. I am not
promoting H2
> > as a near term solution to any stove problem. The reason for my looking
at
> > the subject is that (IMO) it is by far the most important influence on
the
> > present US program on renewable energy - a policy subject I have worked
on
> > for 30 years. I am doing this as the principal board member of the
American
> > Solar Energy Society (ASES) working on an H2 white paper due out fairly
> > soon. ASES (IMO) is the main environmental/energy group taking on the
> > administration on this topic.
> > a. Why the "most important influence"? because our
administration has
> > decreed so - it was a bombshell in Bush's State of the Union Address in
> > February - many hundreds of billions (not millions) of Federal dollars
are
> > on the line. It appears to ASES that support for the newly expanded H2
> > program is coming out of the existing RE program at DoE. We are mad, as
it
> > appears that the administration is lining up those hundreds of billions
for
> > the coal and nuclear industries. (Fortunately the EU and Japan have
also
> > committed this past few months to the same switch - but they are
promoting
> > H2 only from renewables.)
> > b. What future H2 role for stoves? It all depends on
developments like
> > that in Wisconsin which Harmon brought to our attention. It likely
won't
> > happen at all soon - but it could - when lots of bright people start
trying
> > to feed lower cost H2 into the huge complex of energy and car companies
> > saying they are ready to go that route (as opposed mainly to the
electric
> > car, which both industries are opposing). The huge turnover in
> > infrastructure from oil to hydrogen will likely not wait for the fuel
cell
> > to drop in price - it will start with IC engines. It will happen quite
fast
> > (H2 loves the ICE) if H2 drops enough in price (from whatever source)
and if
> > California and a few other states keep up the pressure.
> > c. What connection to stoves? If H2 starts gaining momentum
because of a
> > low price and an auto-dominated market, it won't be long before it is
used
> > in all fuel markets - including stoves. The reason for stoves is that
> > raised by Kirk Smith - it solves all (too strong a word?) indoor air
> > pollution problems! But won't happen unless there is concern about
health
> > (more below on that)
> > d. Why might it happen in developing countries? Because that
is where H2
> > could be cheapest and where oil is now highest cost and where a natural
gas
> > infrastructure doesn't exist. Cheap because of low cost labor, low-cost
> > biomass, plentiful sunshine, etc. And because the EU and Japan want
their
> > H2 to come from RE sources. There is no reason at all to think of huge
> > tankers traversing the oceans (half the time empty) if people insist
that
> > supposedly clean H2 in fact comes from clean (i.e. RE) resources. H2
> > production from RE sources has a huge local advantage that our
> > Administration has not yet learned.
> >
> > 3. Now on your main point of the need to push more rapidly on
introduction
> > of good stoves. my reply mainly has to do with health issues.
> > a). You asked
> > >Is Kirk's Article available "on line?" If so, would you have a URL?
> >
> > RWL:
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/02_smith_3.pdf
> >
> > b) I fear that to ask for speed, is to ignore Kirk's warning
given in that
> > editorial. He has by far the most expertise on this subject - and he
has
> > given up on carrying out your recommendation on improved stove
introduction
> > at this time.
> > c) I have concluded that he is both right and wrong. I feel we
should not
> > be introducing a reliance on imported fossil fuel products. But there
is no
> > reason to not introduce superior, store bought fuels (strictly for their
> > health advantages) if they are locally made (i.e. from RE sources) -
even if
> > they cost more. The question is whether the increased costs offset the
> > existing costs of poorly performing stoves.
> > d) Now why is Kirk not in favor of more rapid introduction? I
fear that
> > the reason is that stove workers (the "stoves" list) has not yet
> > demonstrated superiority. I thought I had made a pretty damning
statement
> > yesterday when I said:
> >
> > >> Unfortunately, I claim we haven't got one single lab anywhere
> > >> in the world equipped to do this - even if we had the money to
> > >>conduct the testing.
> > >
> >
> > And you replied:
> > >At the risk of goring oxen, why not just do it? I would bet a box of
beer
> > >that if someone said to someone like Crispin: " Heres what we need,
and if
> > >you build it, we will buy 10,000," that he would provide the testing to
> > >demonstrate that the stove met Specifications.
> >
> > RWL: My problem with your response is that you haven't supplied
the
> > "someone". Maybe Crispin would rise to that challenge - but I would
demand
> > pretty good assurances before I would take on such a challenge myself.
> > Rather I am afraid we will have to muddle along until we have
developed
> > enough proof with our own limited testing ability to demand more action.
So
> > far we only have proof (IMO) on how bad stoves are.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > Below are some topics I started on. Please feel free to try again if
you
> > feel I didn't answer something critical.
> >
> > You said today:
> >
> > a
> > > <snip> However, we normally think of
> > >"fuel" in its context of "bringing new energy into the system".
<snip>
> >
> > RWL: This definition of "fuel" isn't one I use.
> >
> > >>
> > b.
> > <snip>
> > > Can we actually buy hydrogen anywhere for $US14 per GJ?
> > >
> >
> > RWL: I have a power point slide showing two citations:..
> > Source: SRI Chemical Economics Handbook, 2002, Captive H2
> > Source: Chemical Market Reporter, 2/24/03; Merchant H2
> > The numbers given are all over the map, but include $2/kg or
$14/GJ.
> > <snip>
> > >
> >
> > c.
> > > <snip> Someone previously posted a vivid example, where a
> > >"hydrogen tanker" could only drive 800 miles before it emptied its
tank.
> > <snip>
> >
> > RWL: One would not rationally use a truck to go 800 miles -
there would be
> > a high pressure pipeline - and maybe liquefaction.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > d.
> > > Hydrogen for cooking appears to be a fatally flawed
> > >concept: "Hydrogen it too expensive and cumbersome at the present,
> > >but might be feasible if cost effective PV and wind systems become
> > >available, but then it would be easier to use the electricity
directly."
> > >
> > RWL: Except that hydrogen might be the best storage option for
the
> > non-dispatchable PV and wind options - especially when electricity (not
> > cooking) is needed.
> >
> > <snip>
> > e.
> > >This [talking about zinc] is "possible future technology." Even if it
is
> > successfully developed
> > >to a "wildly successful" level, it would seem to have little
> > >application in
> > >Third World conditions, where it is difficult to keep a stove pipe
clean.
> >
> > RWL: Have to disagree. We are talking here of something that
has few
> > moving parts, albeit a very high temperature. After living in Sudan for
a
> > year - I was amazed at how well they kept their truck fleet running - in
> > regions where no one had any electric power. Even if limited to bigger
> > villages, the transport of a bag of metal "chips" should be pretty
cheap.
> > The comparison should be to the transport of cans of propane over much
> > larger distances.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > e.
> > >I am not familiar with this technology [talking about nanotechnology],
but
> > I do understand that that it has very interesting possibilities.
> >
> > (RWL): Again - the huge surprise is that the efficiency of
conversion
> > could (not yet proven) be as high as 85%. Another name for the
technique is
> > "quantum dots".
> > >
> >
> > f.
> > <snip>
> > >I think the "bottom line" is that all gas fuels are dangerous, but if
> > >handled "properly", there is no danger.
> >
> > (RWL): We still need to be looking into the special safety
properties of
> > H2. The "Science" article mostly warned about law suits. The phrase
"no
> > danger" I can't subscribe to.
> >
> > g.
> > >Now we are talking!! This is the key issue, as I see it:
> > >Designing a:
> > >1: "stove system"
> > >2: " to cook"
> > > 3: "cleanly" and
> > >4: "efficiently"
> > >5: with "solid fuels.
> > >
> > > On the one hand, this is no problem whatsoever, but on the other hand,
it
> > >is a totally impossible task. The MAJOR mistake I see being made
> > >is to think that there is such a thing as a "universal stove." There is
no
> > >such thing as a "universal stove" because of the gross differences in
the
> > above 5
> > >parameters from site to site. Indeed there are many "perfectly
adequate"
> > >stoves now readily available all over the World, yet these very same
> > >stoves would be miserable failures if they were used in applications
for
> > >which they were not designed.
> >
> > (RWL): I don't remember myself or anyone else raising the
subject of a
> > "universal stove" nor have I been advocating one.
> > To your list, I must add the concept of "economically" - which
you might
> > mean by "efficiently" (which is very different in meaning on this list).
> > Chimneys seem to be generally an appropriate option - but sometimes not
seen
> > to be worth their cost and effort - as we have heard in the last few
weeks.
> >
> > h.
> > >> I certainly hope we can provide that proof.
> > >
> > >The proof is all around us, of both successes and failure:
> > >1: Some existing stoves are perfectly adequate for their intended
> > >application.
> > >2: Some stove systems are basically good but fail because of smoke
> > >considerations that could be readily cured with the addition of a
chimney
> > >or exhaust hood.
> > >3: Some stove systems are very much below standards of acceptability,
and
> > >require "new designs" to get them up to a minimum level of
acceptability.
> > >
> > >I feel that the merits and goodness of "Class1" and "Class 2" stoves
are
> > >generally overlooked and that it is the "Class 3" stoves that create
the
> > >general image of the "state of stove technology."
> >
> > (RWL): Your class 1) stoves are generally not being adopted
without
> > subsidy - I think those in China may be in this category - as the
subsidy
> > program seems to have stopped and they are continuing with making pretty
> > good stoves. But I haven't yet seen this in print - and it may not be
true.
> > I would like to know much more about how good they are. A.D. Karve
> > (clarifying AD to NOT mean "anaerobic digestion" in any of my messages)
has
> > reported on how the Indian program was stopped because there apparently
were
> > no stoves in this category.
> > Your class 2) stoves are often OK - but many of them have major
subsidy
> > programs. We have been hearing that chimneys are not being accepted.
> >
> > So we probably agree on #3 - but I am still worried about the #1
and #2
> > categories. I am greatly concerned that the Shell Foundation has begun
big
> > introductions of several stoves that may be pretty good - but have never
> > been tested - even partially. They could all well be adding to global
> > warming and health issue - even though claimed to be in your #1 or #2
> > category..
> >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > i.
> > >I think that this (the A.D. karve production of CH4] is a wonderful
system,
> > and that it is indeed extremely
> > >appropriate for use in its intended application.....
> > >
> > > There is no fundamental reason that AD's system couldn't
> > >> eventually work just as well (meaning cheap) by producing H2.
> > >
> > >I don't know enough about the hydrogen process, but Mother Nature seem
to
> > >have a fundamental preference for making CH4 rather than H2.
> >
> > (RWL): Maybe - but apparently there are bacteria out there
already
> > producing H2 (can't provide an exact reference - but look for "Mellis"
or
> > Melis at Berkeley). But know that there are researchers figuring how to
> > maximize the H2 production process better now. Can't be too much harder
> > than the amazing job chlorophyll does in producing O2.
> >
> > j. <SNIP>
> > >CO poisoning is not a concern with a properly designed and vented
stove.
> >
> > (RWL - Sorry - can't agree - too many annual CO deaths. In any
case, CO
> > also is a global warming contributor.
> >
> > k.
> > >Solar PV can now do this [ talking about small fuels cells].
> >
> > RWL: Not at night and batteries not for many hours a day. I
hope you are
> > not predicting that small fuels cells can't make it in the marketplace.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > <snip>
> > l.
> > >I think this [RWL: I guess "Harmon's addition on the start-up company
using
> > biomass for various chemical products] is a very important parameter...
> > indigenous energy sourcing.
> > >Tree plantations and solar farms 100 miles away are inherently less
> > >efficient ways of delivering energy to the point of use.
> >
> > RWL: I guess we agree - but no reason to bring in the term "100
miles" I
> > hope from anything I have said. Tree plantations and PV should hopefully
be
> > within meters of users.
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > Here, as you started on point 4) is where I gave up to try to
summarize
> > our general disagreements. As I said above - you or anyone else are
free
> > to ask me for any response to a response. Not trying to duck a dispute
> > here.
> >
> > Ron

From dstill at EPUD.NET Tue Jul 8 23:11:07 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUL.2003.201107.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Bruno and Stephan,

We find ourselves in a strange position at Aprovecho. Three years ago Enron
Corp. gave us a 2.2 Kw very high DC voltage photovoltaic system with AC
inverter which is designed to send excess electrical power back to the
utility. The inverter blew up twice and we would have to pay about $5,000 to
replace it. In this case, I think that producing hydrogen to be used for
cooking and transportation might be feasible. I'm looking for a reliable,
inexpensive electrolizer so Stephan's tip was appreciated.

The renowned Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) published a review of
the hydrogen economy in June. The paper concludes that "the energy lost in
making hydrogen is more than made up by its extremely efficient use..."
And, " decentralized production...using off peak capacity of existing gas
and electricity distribution systems" means that production of hydrogen
would not consume most of the energy it contains.

Also, "If the hydrogen now used by U.S. refineries were instead fed into
fuel-cell vehicles..., it would displace one-fourth of all U.S.
gasoline-twice as much as comes from the Persian Gulf."

The report should be found at www.rmi.org

I have been dubious about hydrogen but I also tend to trust Lovins.

All Best,

Dean

From pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU Wed Jul 16 06:22:00 2003
From: pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology
In-Reply-To: <003d01c34b5e$75840060$a51e6c0c@default>
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.202200.1000.PVERHAART@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

Dear Dean,

Some comment between the lines.

With best regards,

Peter Verhaart

At 20:11 08/07/03 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear Bruno and Stephan,
>Snip (before snap)
>
>The renowned Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) published a review of
>the hydrogen economy in June. The paper concludes that "the energy lost in
>making hydrogen is more than made up by its extremely efficient use..."

I don't believe that. Energy (work) is dissipated in the electrolysis
process, you need a higher voltage than the potential (can't think of the
right word) of Hydrogen. The power you dissipate is the excess voltage
times the current.
How efficient is hydrogen used? Burning it in air means heating 80 % of
nitrogen with it, efficient use indeed! Or would they burn it together with
the oxygen, a 2000+ C fire to boil your potatoes?

>And, " decentralized production...using off peak capacity of existing gas
>and electricity distribution systems" means that production of hydrogen
>would not consume most of the energy it contains.

That is a financial argument, the electricity is cheaper but the polution
with greenhouse gases remains.

From rmiranda at INET.COM.BR Wed Jul 16 08:28:47 2003
From: rmiranda at INET.COM.BR (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: About technology transfer
In-Reply-To: <014c01c34a9f$4d692de0$e19a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.092847.0300.RMIRANDA@INET.COM.BR>

Kevin: Time is relative. 40 years in at least 40,000 years since mankind
discovered the open fire (and still very much using it) is nothing. rogerio

At 04:04 a.m. 15/07/03 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Rogerio
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda" <rmiranda@inet.com.br>
>To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] About technology transfer
>
>
> > Kevin: below my response to your Email from 08/07/03 -,
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm wrote
> > Dear Rogerio
> >
> > >My views are basically that it is impossible to design a good "Universal
> > >Stove", because the "total system" in which they work is very different,
>and
> > >not at all "Universal."
>....del....
> >
> > Rogerio: I was refering to those who need a woodstove among the 2 billion
> > out there without modern household fuel. I believe the majority of those
> > are in the tropics, and also only to those who use wood as fuel.
>
>OK.... 1: The fuel is to be wood.
>What size of wood? What type of wood? What moisture content? These all
>effect the burning characteristics.
>2: What heat release rate is required of the stove?
>3: What cooking job is to be done?
>Etc...
> >
> > You are right that different types of wood, different humidity and
> > different operators can produce so many different combustions dynamics.
> > However considering open fires, the trick is to eliminate as much
> > combustion variables as possible and concentrate in three basic elements
> > for a good woodfire: good fuel, right amount of oxygen and enough heat to
> > ignite and hold the fire. In this respect Dr Larry Winiarsky with
> > his simple and clever rocket stove, has made just that, eliminate many
> > variables and concentrated in what is important for a woodfire. Of
> > course, it is not yet perfect, but we made a good progress forward.
> >
> > Now, from "the rocket stove" and it variations of accessories ( full
> > covered griddle or semi open griddle, oven or no oven, chimney or no
> > chimney, water heater or no water heater, etc) I believe is leading us
> > toward a "universal stove".
>
>I would suggest not. There are two basic "stove components", the "combustion
>component" and the "cooker component"
>
>I would suggest that Larry's job (or Crispin's, or Lanny's) would be very
>much easier if he was asked to design a "modular system", where he designed
>a "combustion system" for several "standard fuels" and which had several
>different outputs. This "combustor module" could then be added to various
>"cooker modules". You would then end up with a "family of solutions" to your
>cooking problems. This is what I mean when I say that there is no single
>stove solution.... there are simply too many local variables.
> >
> >
> > >Kevin: To view your example of the Brazilian Stove from a
> > >different light..... it took 100 years for it to become widely
>accepted...
> >
> > Rogerio: It took less than 100 years to be accepted. I guess it started
> > about 100 years ago, but elderly people which I have questioning about it,
> > remember this stove being used since before the second world war.
>
>OK.... that is still 40 years.... a very long time.
>
>Best wishes for every success with the good that you wish to accomplish.
>
>Kevin
> >

From dstill at EPUD.NET Wed Jul 16 05:13:45 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.021345.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Peter,

Answering between your lines. This is taken from the RMI article...

All Best,

Dean
>>The renowned Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) published a review of
>>the hydrogen economy in June. The paper concludes that "the energy lost in
>>making hydrogen is more than made up by its extremely efficient use..."
>
>I don't believe that. Energy (work) is dissipated in the electrolysis
>process, you need a higher voltage than the potential (can't think of the
>right word) of Hydrogen. The power you dissipate is the excess voltage
>times the current.
>How efficient is hydrogen used? Burning it in air means heating 80 % of
>nitrogen with it, efficient use indeed! Or would they burn it together with
>the oxygen, a 2000+ C fire to boil your potatoes?

RMI figures that greater end use efficiency, in a 42% efficient hydrogen
using car makes up for the difference. They state that making gasoline is a
75 to 90% efficient process. Making electricity from oil is 30 to 35%. In
natural gas reformers hydrogen is produced at 72 to 85% or electrolysis is
70 to 75%. Then they subtract 15% because of hydrogens lower heating value.
But gas is now used at 16% in cars. Hybrids are double that. Fuel cell cars
are 42% so the two figures multiplied together mean savings over current
technology. The car is the pot, to use a stove analogy. Increasing the least
efficient part of a system results in greatest overall improvement. As we
know, improving heat transfer to the pot is much more important for saving
fuel in a cooking stove compared to improving combustion efficiency because
HTE is so much poorer.
>
>>And, " decentralized production...using off peak capacity of existing gas
>>and electricity distribution systems" means that production of hydrogen
>>would not consume most of the energy it contains.
>
>That is a financial argument, the electricity is cheaper but the polution
>with greenhouse gases remains.

Again the greater production of CO2 is more than balanced out, RMI says, by
greater end use efficiency. I only pass this on as information. This topic
is so complicated that I am quite out of my depth and having found that much
of the written word is false feel on strange ground quoting "experts". I do
trust Lovins however and have admired his work. If I were to bet on a
horse...

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Wed Jul 16 11:51:39 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030716201046.00ac0a80@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.165139.0100.>

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:22:00 +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:

>At 20:11 08/07/03 -0700, Dean wrote:

>>The renowned Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) published a review of
>>the hydrogen economy in June. The paper concludes that "the energy lost in
>>making hydrogen is more than made up by its extremely efficient use..."
>
>I don't believe

Taken literally neither do I, if the hydrogen is derived from the
electrolysis of water, may be a bit debatable if from a thermal
process co generating electricity.

> that. Energy (work) is dissipated in the electrolysis
>process, you need a higher voltage than the potential (can't think of the
>right word) of Hydrogen.

Are you thinking of electronVolts necessary to break the hydrogen
oxygen bond? This is in fact a measure of energy.

> The power you dissipate is the excess voltage
>times the current.

I though the power dissipated is the I2R of the current passing
through the medium (acidulated water in my school day experiments).
Are you suggesting there is a "wasted" voltage drop inherent in
electrolysis? Like the forward voltage in a diode?

>How efficient is hydrogen used? Burning it in air means heating 80 % of
>nitrogen with it, efficient use indeed! Or would they burn it together with
>the oxygen, a 2000+ C fire to boil your potatoes?

You're bound to use the oxygen for something :-)

>
>>And, " decentralized production...using off peak capacity of existing gas
>>and electricity distribution systems" means that production of hydrogen
>>would not consume most of the energy it contains.
>
>That is a financial argument, the electricity is cheaper but the polution
>with greenhouse gases remains.

The electricity will be cheaper because the nuclear plant producing it
costs the same to run whether it runs at full or half capacity.

If an electricity production and distribution system ever has more
unscheduled supplies (from wind/tide/pv) than it can accommodate (
generally reckoned at 20% of total) by turning down conventional
generation (and this has some efficiency bearing as spinning reserve
can consume a fair proportion of the energy being displaced and the
capital cost of the reserve needs accounting for) then, as the
renewables have no variable costs associated with fuel, it will be
necessary to find a way of storing it or losing it. As AD Karve has
intimated, after pumped hydro chemical storage seems best and methane
is an existing distribution technology.

The drive for hydrogen seems to be mostly associated with fuel cells,
and then wrt their use in automobiles in western economies.

What I wonder is the effect of an hydrogen economy other than its
apparent low efficiency of production. How much hydrogen naturally
escapes into the environment? With distribution losses quoted as high
as 20% of production (hydrogen is hard to contain at high pressure)
and hydrogen being light enough (along with helium) to rise to the top
of the atmosphere where it can have an ozone depleting effect par
excellence, will the environmental cost be too high?

AJH

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed Jul 16 12:09:15 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology - hydrogen
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.180915.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Friends

Is there more energy required to electrolyse water if it is kept inside a
sealed tank?

Can I put two tanks next to each other connected by a tee (for an
electrical/chemical pathway between them) and put in a certain amount of
water, then with one electrode inside one tank and the other inside the
second tank, turn on the power and produce the two gases under
(continuously) increasing pressure? Asking around the office brought a
blank.

That way I could eliminate a need for a compressor.

I assume that there is some pressure at which no bubbles will come off the
electrode, but even if the total amount of energy required is the same
(electrolysis and compression) at least I could bypass the compressor itself
and all its mechanical losses.

Regards
Crispin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Jul 16 12:36:08 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: Hydrogen
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.133608.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

I got a quotation from a significant supplier of Commercial Hydrogen in
tanker wagon quantities, and it works out to about $C2 per standard cubic
meter.

He indicated that "onsite" hydrogen generators can produce hydrogen for as
low as about $C1.5 per SM^3, for a large installation, to $C2 to $C3 for
medium to smaller installations

Tom Reed previously provided the following information:
" ~~~~~
CO and H2 have the same energy content. CO = 12.0 MJ/m3; hydrogen, 12.1
MJ/m3 high heating value, HHV, and only 10.2 MJ/m3 LHV."

At the site: http://home.att.net/~cat6a/fuels-VII.htm the heating value of
Hydrogen is given at 48.5 kw-hr/kG, and kJ per g.

Working backwards, and knowing that a gram-molecular weight of H2 weighs 2
grams, the weight of a cubic meter of hydrogen would be about 1000/22.4*2 =
89 grams. 1 SM^3 thus contains
89/1000*48.5 = 4.36 kW-hr

At $C2 per SM^3, the cost of Hydrogen is about $C.46 per kw-hr, or at
present currency conversion rates, about $US.33 per kw-hr.

Hydrogen is not cheap.

Electrolysers are apparently very inefficient, because of the "Hydrogen
Overvoltage" phenomenon. The Gas Supplier guessed that the electrical
conversion efficiency in hydrogen electrolysers is in the range of 50%

The following article doesn't have much good to say about Hydrogen either.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=384

The Hydrogen Hallucination - The "Freedom Fuel" Leaves Us in Chains
7.1.03 Mark Sardella, PE, Executive Director, Local Energy

It's being called the "freedom fuel", capable of releasing us at last from
the grip of the oil barons. The "hydrogen economy" is even the buzz of the
bestseller list. But don't break out the party balloons yet, because
hydrogen hasn't even the slightest chance of solving our energy problems. A
bold assertion, perhaps, but the proof is contained in the simplest of
facts: Hydrogen is not a source of energy.
It is true that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but
here on Earth all of the hydrogen is combined with other elements. The best
example has two hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom, forming the
familiar H2O water molecule. Four hydrogen atoms bonded to a carbon atom
makes methane, which we know as "natural gas". But if what you need is pure
hydrogen - the stuff fuel cells run on - you have to manufacture it. Doing
so requires tearing hydrogen loose from whatever it's bonded to, which
requires an input of energy. The energy you invest in breaking the bonds is
essentially "stored" in the hydrogen, and you can get it back by allowing
the hydrogen to bond to something again, as a fuel-cell does. So hydrogen is
simply a storage medium - you have to put energy in before you get any back.
It could thus be considered a carrier of energy, by it is by no means a
source of energy.

This notion of hydrogen as a storage device is vastly different from
petroleum, which is clearly a source of energy. As with hydrogen, petroleum
requires an energy investment before it is a usable fuel. You have to drill
for it, then pump, transport, refine, and transport it again before it can
be used as an automobile fuel. But in the case of petroleum, the fuel you
end up with contains about five times the energy needed to produce it.
That's why it's called a source of energy - the energy returned is greater
than the energy invested.

The distinction between energy sources and carriers is significant because
the decline of our major sources of energy has reached a critical point. The
production of petroleum, our most important energy source and the provider
of about 40 percent of the world's energy, is now falling in more than 50
countries. The falling production in these regions must be offset by
increased production somewhere else, but as more and more regions head into
decline, fewer and fewer places remain to pick up the slack. Significant
increases in oil production require large oil reserves, but at this point,
the Middle East is the only place that still possesses a reserve large
enough to allow production increases on the scale needed to offset the
collective decline of all other countries. Rates of decline, meanwhile, are
accelerating, and within the decade even the Middle East will be unable to
bridge the gap. At that point oil production will peak, and from there it
can only begin an irrevocabl!
e decline. Efforts by the petroleum geology community to nail down the
exact date of peak are interesting academically, but the real trouble begins
with the loss of oil stability, which is already happening. Price stability
requires that excess production capacity be available, but excess capacity
is down to around two percent of the market volume - far less than is
needed. And with every developed nation's economic future reliant on Middle
Eastern oil, geopolitical stability hangs in a delicate and unsustainable
balance.

If world oil depletion isn't distressing enough, the heating fuel crisis in
the US poses an imminent economic threat. Natural-gas production from
existing US wells now falls at an alarming 29 percent per year - a rate too
steep to overcome even with 892 drill rigs working full-time to bring new
gas wells on line. The inability to increase production apace with demand is
already destabilizing gas markets, as evidenced by the current price hikes
and storage deficits. At winter's end, the US had just nine days of gas
remaining in storage overall, and the northeast region dipped to just three
days of reserve. Propane and heating-oil also finished the winter at
near-record lows, and even the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy
Information Administration - a group well known for emotionless reporting of
dire news - termed the situation "precarious." In its characteristic
matter-of-fact style, the EIA writes in its April 16, 2003 weekly report,
"The prospect of rebuilding propane in!
ventories to prior year levels appears to be in jeopardy." The EIA goes on
to discuss the possibility of supply disruptions as if they were normal
occurrences as opposed to early warnings of a structural failure of the
industry.

If three different heating fuels all run short next winter, what market
dynamics are likely to ensue? When oil and gas prices skyrocket, what's the
alternative? Hydrogen? I think not. You might as well suggest we heat our
homes and power our cars with batteries and flywheels. We'll need energy
sources, not carriers.

Some enthusiasts acknowledge that hydrogen is not a source, but that coupled
with renewable sources, it's the perfect fuel. Unfortunately, that's just
not the case. Hydrogen's low energy density makes it exceedingly inefficient
to transport. To illustrate this, consider that a 40-ton tanker truck loaded
with gasoline contains nearly 20 times the energy of a 40-ton truck loaded
with compressed hydrogen. If both trucks deliver fuel to a filling station
800 miles away, the gasoline truck consumes about three percent of the
energy in its payload to make the roundtrip. But the hydrogen truck
traveling the same route would consume all of the energy in its payload. Put
another way, if you tried to run the hydrogen delivery truck on hydrogen, it
would consume its entire payload making the trip, and have no fuel to
deliver.1

If it's not a source and it's a lousy carrier, why does hydrogen get so much
attention? Are the 985 U.S. organizations that are listed as fuel cell
developers, researchers, distributors, consultants, suppliers, associations,
government agencies, and laboratories really on to something, or are they
simply riding a tidal wave of government hype and subsidies? Are the coal
and nuclear industries pushing hydrogen in hopes that they will get to
provide the necessary energy to produce it? Once again the answers may be
academic. It doesn't matter why we are fixated on an energy carrier while
charging headlong into a source crisis. We must simply acknowledge the
oversight and move on.

Imagining that the simplest element in the universe held the key to solving
our energy problems was exciting, but now it's time to awaken from our
hydrogen hallucination and devote attention to the real solutions of
improved efficiencies and sustainable sources.

1 Final Report: "The Future of the Hydrogen Economy: Bright or Bleak?" Ulf
Bossel, Baldur Elaisson, and Gordon Taylor, April 15, 2003.
http://www.efcf.com/reports/

From rvanderplas at YAHOO.COM Wed Jul 16 12:53:04 2003
From: rvanderplas at YAHOO.COM (Robert J. van der Plas)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: About technology transfer
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20030716092626.00cb2b70@inet.com.br>
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.185304.0200.RVANDERPLAS@YAHOO.COM>

Rogerio is right; there are too many local variables to produce a universal
rural cooking stove. To address some basic elements might be a better way
to go about. He mentioned:

fuel to heat/combustion, and
heat to pot transfer (including heat regulation).

In addition, I'd like to add a different dimension: unless these components
can be sold or home-made for $2 or less and result in user comfort that is
much better than what people experience now, it will not be of much use to
the 2 billion that Rogerio mentioned. Many of them are not even using
wood, but agricultural residues (and thus even less uniform in quality),
simply because it is easier and less time consuming to collect residues
than it is to collect firewood. The current stove is home-made (i.e., for
free), and the decision to buy one will be a very difficult decision indeed
for any household that lives on less than $1/day.

On the other hand, the peri-urban & urban have switched or are in the
process of switching to charcoal. Charcoal is a much more uniform fuel
than firewood or agricultural residues. Charcoal also is an inefficient
fuel to use (from the macro-economic point of view, not from the household
point of view). A uniform charcoal stove, that approaches LPG efficiencies
and ease of use, and can be locally produced and sold for $5 would make a
major difference in many countries..... All households that use charcoal
now cook with a stove they bought - and which is likely to have a useful
life of 1 year, or 2 years if replacement parts happen to be sold. Thus,
they are bound to buy a new stove soon, and they might be interested in
buying one that is more efficient than the one they used all along. The
traditional model is likely to be sold for $3-5, and for a household to pay
more for a better stove will need quite a bit of education, irrespective of
the (laboratory) performance and quality of the better stove.

Consider this: if a household used 8 kg of firewood per day in a 20%
efficient firewood stove, it would need a charcoal stove that is 92%
efficient to cook a meal and obtain an equal wood consumption (with a
charcoal production efficiency of 12%, or 74% with a 15% charcoal
production efficiency). It might therefore be better to concentrate, for a
start, on charcoal stoves. Moreover, charcoal use leads in most countries
to deforestation, which is most often not the case with firewood use.
Charcoal comes from rural areas, thus reducing wood off take for charcoal
production will also lead to higher wood availability for rural users.

Regards,

Robert

At 09:28 AM 2003-07-16 -0300, you wrote:
>Kevin: Time is relative. 40 years in at least 40,000 years since mankind
>discovered the open fire (and still very much using it) is nothing. rogerio
>
>
>At 04:04 a.m. 15/07/03 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>>Dear Rogerio
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda" <rmiranda@inet.com.br>
>>To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:18 PM
>>Subject: Re: [STOVES] About technology transfer
>>
>>
>> > Kevin: below my response to your Email from 08/07/03 -,
>> >
>> > Kevin Chisholm wrote
>> > Dear Rogerio
>> >
>> > >My views are basically that it is impossible to design a good "Universal
>> > >Stove", because the "total system" in which they work is very different,
>>and
>> > >not at all "Universal."
>>....del....
>> >
>> > Rogerio: I was refering to those who need a woodstove among the 2 billion
>> > out there without modern household fuel. I believe the majority of those
>> > are in the tropics, and also only to those who use wood as fuel.
>>
>>OK.... 1: The fuel is to be wood.
>>What size of wood? What type of wood? What moisture content? These all
>>effect the burning characteristics.
>>2: What heat release rate is required of the stove?
>>3: What cooking job is to be done?
>>Etc...
>> >
>> > You are right that different types of wood, different humidity and
>> > different operators can produce so many different combustions dynamics.
>> > However considering open fires, the trick is to eliminate as much
>> > combustion variables as possible and concentrate in three basic elements
>> > for a good woodfire: good fuel, right amount of oxygen and enough heat to
>> > ignite and hold the fire. In this respect Dr Larry Winiarsky with
>> > his simple and clever rocket stove, has made just that, eliminate many
>> > variables and concentrated in what is important for a woodfire. Of
>> > course, it is not yet perfect, but we made a good progress forward.
>> >
>> > Now, from "the rocket stove" and it variations of accessories ( full
>> > covered griddle or semi open griddle, oven or no oven, chimney or no
>> > chimney, water heater or no water heater, etc) I believe is leading us
>> > toward a "universal stove".
>>
>>I would suggest not. There are two basic "stove components", the "combustion
>>component" and the "cooker component"
>>
>>I would suggest that Larry's job (or Crispin's, or Lanny's) would be very
>>much easier if he was asked to design a "modular system", where he designed
>>a "combustion system" for several "standard fuels" and which had several
>>different outputs. This "combustor module" could then be added to various
>>"cooker modules". You would then end up with a "family of solutions" to your
>>cooking problems. This is what I mean when I say that there is no single
>>stove solution.... there are simply too many local variables.
>> >
>> >
>> > >Kevin: To view your example of the Brazilian Stove from a
>> > >different light..... it took 100 years for it to become widely
>>accepted...
>> >
>> > Rogerio: It took less than 100 years to be accepted. I guess it started
>> > about 100 years ago, but elderly people which I have questioning about it,
>> > remember this stove being used since before the second world war.
>>
>>OK.... that is still 40 years.... a very long time.
>>
>>Best wishes for every success with the good that you wish to accomplish.
>>
>>Kevin
>> >

From shimadm at YAHOO.COM Wed Jul 16 13:35:48 2003
From: shimadm at YAHOO.COM (shimadm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: change of address
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.103548.0700.SHIMADM@YAHOO.COM>

Dear Sir,

Could you please change my e-mail address to:
mossesshim@yahoo.com
for the discussion these days are becoming so intense that I needed another mail account for the STOVES.

Sincerely,
Shimelis

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Jul 16 13:42:06 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: Hydrogen Technology
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.144206.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear List

Here is another reference on Hydrogen Technology..
http://r.searchhippo.com/r3.php?i=3&q=electrolytic+hydrogen+production+efficiency&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eren.doe.gov%2F

Electrolyser efficiencies are in the 40% to 50% range. Not a pretty
picture...

Kevin Chisholm

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Wed Jul 16 12:40:11 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: virus or prank
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.221011.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

I have again received a message on the subject of kilns. It has again
originated in Myanmar and is again a
garbled message containing an attachment. In case others on this list have
received it, please delete it. I have not sent any such message. It is
either a virus or a prank.
A.D.Karve

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Wed Jul 16 23:44:53 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: Winiarski Rocket Lantern
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.234453.0400.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

I've been looking at the picture of Dean and his rocket lantern on the
stoves website trying to figure out what make's the concept of the rocket
work so well. I have decided that . . .it's the smile.

Tom

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/

From Bryan.Willson at COLOSTATE.EDU Thu Jul 17 11:07:31 2003
From: Bryan.Willson at COLOSTATE.EDU (Bryan Willson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology - hydrogen
In-Reply-To: <008001c34bb7$e907b280$2a47fea9@md>
Message-ID: <THU.17.JUL.2003.090731.0600.BRYAN.WILLSON@COLOSTATE.EDU>

Crispin -

Yes, you can electroyze water under pressure and use the process to compress
the hydrogen. It's actually more efficient to electrolyze at pressure. It
reduces the size of the hydrogen and oxygen bubbles which contribute to the
electolyzer overvoltage. Large high-efficiency electrolyzers generate at
moderate pressures, I think up to a few hundred psi. Preheating the water
also reduces the electricity requirement, a good use of waste heat if
available.

Now to the other part of your question, regarding whether you can have the
hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a considerable distance. This will
work, but with dramatically reduced efficiency due to increased resistance
from the long electrical path. For high efficiency you want close cell
spacing and high surface area. Putting a small electrode in the tank will
generally yield a relatively low surface area.

Ironically, I was in a hydrogen meeting all morning. Lots of
misinformation, in my humble opinion. On the pro-hydrogen side you have the
"true believers" for whom hydrogen is a panacea. Some cynics would also say
that the current pro-hydrogen signals from the U.S. government are really
intended to relieve the need to pursue gains in efficiency in the short
term. Hydrogen does have it's place on a case-by-case basis, and in
"leveraging" other fuels. For example, a little bit of hydrogen can produce
substantial improvements in the performance of natural gas engines. There's
a lot of hype now about fuel cells - for the most part I'm not a big fan of
fuel cells.

Not clear what motivation there would be for the use of hydrogen in stoves.
Electrolysis doesn't make sense - even simple resistance heating is more
efficient than electrolysis followed by combustion. The use of biomass is
attractive for hydrogen, but why not burn directly? Or gasify and burn the
gas - significantly cheaper and more efficient.

- Bryan Willson

Dr. Bryan Willson
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Research Director, Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1374
Phone: (970)-491-4783
Mobile: (970)-227-5164
Text Messaging: 9702275164@mobile.att.net
FAX: (970)-491-4799
EECL Web Site: www.engr.colostate.edu/eecl/
Alternate Engines Lab Contact: Ms. Kathy Nugent - (970)-491-4785

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
> Behalf Of Crispin
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:09 AM
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology - hydrogen
>
>
> Dear Friends
>
> Is there more energy required to electrolyse water if it is kept inside a
> sealed tank?
>
> Can I put two tanks next to each other connected by a tee (for an
> electrical/chemical pathway between them) and put in a certain amount of
> water, then with one electrode inside one tank and the other inside the
> second tank, turn on the power and produce the two gases under
> (continuously) increasing pressure? Asking around the office brought a
> blank.
>
> That way I could eliminate a need for a compressor.
>
> I assume that there is some pressure at which no bubbles will come off the
> electrode, but even if the total amount of energy required is the same
> (electrolysis and compression) at least I could bypass the
> compressor itself
> and all its mechanical losses.
>
> Regards
> Crispin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Jul 17 11:55:17 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology - hydrogen
Message-ID: <THU.17.JUL.2003.125517.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Bryan

Thanks very much for your informative comments.....

...del..
>
> Ironically, I was in a hydrogen meeting all morning. Lots of
> misinformation, in my humble opinion. On the pro-hydrogen side you have
the
> "true believers" for whom hydrogen is a panacea. Some cynics would also
say
> that the current pro-hydrogen signals from the U.S. government are really
> intended to relieve the need to pursue gains in efficiency in the short
> term.

This is a sad situation indeed. In this day and age, when Science and Method
should be used be used to help us to a solution, all too many people adopt
the approach that "Believing makes it so."

Your "humble opinion", very sadly, is all too correct. Misinformation, and
information intended to misdirect, abound. Politics and Political
Correctness seek to over-rule truth and reality.

...del...
>
> Not clear what motivation there would be for the use of hydrogen in
stoves.

As near as I can see, it is as follows: Hydrogen burns cleanly. If we
electrolyse water so that we can employ hydrogen for cooking in Third World
Countries, we can eliminate the need to burn biomass and install chimneys
on the stoves.

> Electrolysis doesn't make sense - even simple resistance heating is more
> efficient than electrolysis followed by combustion. The use of biomass is
> attractive for hydrogen, but why not burn directly? Or gasify and burn
the
> gas - significantly cheaper and more efficient.

Right on.
>
Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Thu Jul 17 12:57:25 2003
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: Winiarski Rocket Lantern
Message-ID: <THU.17.JUL.2003.095725.0700.>

I second that // Richard

Tom Miles wrote:

> I've been looking at the picture of Dean and his rocket lantern on the
> stoves website trying to figure out what make's the concept of the rocket
> work so well. I have decided that . . .it's the smile.
>
> Tom
>
> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/

From jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA Wed Jul 16 16:52:53 2003
From: jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.225253.0200.JMDAVIES@XSINET.CO.ZA>

Greetings,

Dean you did not tell where the H2 comes from. As far as I know, from the
crude oil being refined?

Keep stoving,
John.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of hydrogen technology

> Also, "If the hydrogen now used by U.S. refineries were instead fed into
> fuel-cell vehicles..., it would displace one-fourth of all U.S.
> gasoline-twice as much as comes from the Persian Gulf."

From dstill at EPUD.NET Fri Jul 18 04:27:30 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology
Message-ID: <FRI.18.JUL.2003.012730.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear John,

Lovins says that hydrogen is made from natural gas...

I answer with the proviso that I should by no means be considered a informed
source of information regarding hydrogen. It was only after reading the
paper by Lovins that I found myself again in the "undecided" camp after
years of deriding the hydrogen economy scenarios... The resource that I have
quoted should be found at www.rmi.org

Amory Lovins states," Hydrogen manufacture and use is already a large and
mature global industry. At least five percent of U.S. natural gas output is
currently converted into industrial hydrogen...Nearly all hydrogen is
extracted (reformed) from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas..."

All Best,

Dean

From jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA Sat Jul 19 14:15:13 2003
From: jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <SAT.19.JUL.2003.201513.0200.JMDAVIES@XSINET.CO.ZA>

Greetings Dean,

OK It is many years since I worked in the crude refinery, and now have my
thoughts together.

The basic but not necessarily only source of hydrogen in the refinery, is
from the Naphtha Platforming Plant, where Straight chain naphtha ( raw
gasoline ) C6H14 to C8H18 of very low Octane Number is converted to C6H12
to C8H16 a circular chain ( aromatic ).of high Octane Number. Each
molecule converted gives off 1 molecule of hydrogen. This large volume of
hydrogen is used in the hydrogen treater units which remove the Sulphur from
the streams which make up Gasoline, Kerosene and Diesel. Converting the
sulphur into Hydrogen Sulphide, which in turn is converted to pure Sulphur
at the sulphur unit.

I have no argument with the fact that most industrial hydrogen would be
extracted from natural gas ( methane ) or other hydrocarbon sources, which
to my mind would be cheaper than electrolysis, unless the electrical energy
was generated by natural means, i.e. no indirect combustion involved.

Quite honestly I do not go with the "Hydrogen Energy Society". There are
much more direct means of mechanical and heat energy generation, which I
believe are more efficient. Of course I do not discount the possibility of
new technology which might produce hydrogen from water, very much cheaper
than the current methods.

This brings us back to the mammoth job we have to produce more efficient
stoves and space heaters. In my part of the world the stove design has to be
adapted to burn coal, efficiently for both cooking and space heating. My
estimate is that we have about 3 million people, burning an average of 1KG a
day of coal in winter and half as much in summer. This is burned mostly in a
brazier ( tin with holes ), where up to 50 % is wasted as lost heat and
black smoke clouds.

My stove so far has eliminated the visible smoke and brings most of the heat
into the house ( a chimney is essential ). I await emissions testing. And am
working on ways to direct the heat either to the pot or the house.

Some are aiming for a stove that would burn either coal or biomass. As the
two fuels have such different combustion qualities, this will be a tough nut
to crack. I have even found difficulty with getting different types of
bituminous coal to produce the same rate of heat generation in the stove,
there is
much to learn.

This leads me to believe that there will never be a single stove to burn all
types of biomass as the physical qualities of the different types are even
more varied than coal.

To all the stove developers,
Keep up the good work,
We have only just started to scratch the surface,
Of a very big area.

Regards,
John Davies.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of hydrogen technology

> Dear John,
>
> Lovins says that hydrogen is made from natural gas...
>
> I answer with the proviso that I should by no means be considered a
informed
> source of information regarding hydrogen. It was only after reading the
> paper by Lovins that I found myself again in the "undecided" camp after
> years of deriding the hydrogen economy scenarios... The resource that I
have
> quoted should be found at www.rmi.org
>
> Amory Lovins states," Hydrogen manufacture and use is already a large and
> mature global industry. At least five percent of U.S. natural gas output
is
> currently converted into industrial hydrogen...Nearly all hydrogen is
> extracted (reformed) from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas..."
>
> All Best,
>
> Dean
>
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Sat Jul 19 16:56:17 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <SAT.19.JUL.2003.225617.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear John

Did you mean 10 kg per day?

>My estimate is that we have about 3 million people, burning an average
>of 1KG a day of coal in winter and half as much in summer.

Thanks
Crispin

From dstill at EPUD.NET Mon Jul 21 03:34:06 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:32 2004
Subject: Burning coal cleanly
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.003406.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

John Davies writes," My stove so far has eliminated the visible smoke and
brings most of the heat
>into the house ( a chimney is essential ). I await emissions testing. And
am
>working on ways to direct the heat either to the pot or the house."

Dear John,

Burning coal without making smoke is a great accomplishment. Where are you
living now? How does your stove burn so cleanly?

All Best,

Dean

From hyphen at DIAL.PIPEX.COM Sun Jul 20 12:15:53 2003
From: hyphen at DIAL.PIPEX.COM (Mark and/or Jan Bigland-Pritchard // Low Energy Design)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <SUN.20.JUL.2003.171553.0100.HYPHEN@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>

John Davies wrote (amongst other things):

>Greetings Dean,
>
>Quite honestly I do not go with the "Hydrogen Energy Society". There are
>much more direct means of mechanical and heat energy generation, which I
>believe are more efficient. Of course I do not discount the possibility of
>new technology which might produce hydrogen from water, very much cheaper
>than the current methods.
>
I've been watching this thread with some interest, and picking up a
variety of assumptions being made by different people about what a
hydrogen economy might look like.

My own opinion is that a hydrogen economy is only worth pursuing if (i)
it can be done in a way that substantially reduces anthropogenic
radiative forcing (i.e. the human contribution to climate change), and
(ii) hydrogen is then seen as a compact means of carrying energy about,
rather than as a means of substituting primary fuels.

Criterion (i) dictates that - maybe not in the short term, but as soon
as possible - the bulk of hydrogen generation should be by electrolysis
of water, using renewable methods to provide the energy. That way, the
only greenhouse gas emitted is water vapour, which the world's climate
systems can deal with much more easily than CO2.

Criterion (ii) means that it makes sense to run cars off hydrogen (using
fuel cells), and it makes sense for a certain amount of hydrogen to be
used to enable demand and supply of electricity to be better matched (in
this it will compete with other systems such as pumped storage,
flywheels, etc, which enable a higher system efficiency but are more
difficult to site in a responsible way because of either the type or the
extent of their land requirements).

I would not want the world to get into the habit of (for example)
burning it for space heating - there are plenty of more environmentally
responsible alternatives in just about any location - though it may make
sense for at least a proportion of moderate to high temperature process
heat, where the serious competitors will still be natural gas, oil and
electricity for some time to come.

Some of the above is not yet economically viable. Dare I suggest,
though, that it is the job of governments and of intergovernmental
forums to make sure that it becomes so?

Mark
Bristol, England

From jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA Sun Jul 20 13:41:00 2003
From: jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <SUN.20.JUL.2003.194100.0200.JMDAVIES@XSINET.CO.ZA>

Hi Crispin,

A conservative estimate in all numbers. Based on 5 persons per fire, giving
5 kg per fire. I do know that some do burn 10 or more Kg's, but I allow for
the many that cannot afford to burn that much.

John.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin" <crispin@NEWDAWN.SZ>
>
> Did you mean 10 kg per day?
>
> >My estimate is that we have about 3 million people, burning an average
> >of 1KG a day of coal in winter and half as much in summer.
>
> Thanks
> Crispin

From jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA Sun Jul 20 14:46:21 2003
From: jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Burning coal cleanly
Message-ID: <SUN.20.JUL.2003.204621.0200.JMDAVIES@XSINET.CO.ZA>

Hi Dean,

I live on the South African Highveld, 130 Km. south-east of Johannesburg. At
Secunda. Unfortunately this area is devoid of biomass fuel and has local
coal reserves. Hence a coal stove.

The stove is all metal at this stage, and uses gasification technology, with
a special burner above the coal
bed to burn all the nasty tars and other heavy gasses which evolve from the
coal. Hopefully to completion Crispin has seen it in action, his views
would be unbiased, should he wish to comment. This design is the subject of
a patent, so unfortunately no details at this stage. There is something on
it, on the web page. ( not
very fancy as it was the first demonstration model )

Many have asked if it burns biomass, yes it does, but with much smoke, and
uncontrollable heat output. It's a case of horses for courses.

Regards,
John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>

> John Davies writes," My stove so far has eliminated the visible smoke and
> brings most of the heat
> >into the house ( a chimney is essential ). I await emissions testing. And
> am
> >working on ways to direct the heat either to the pot or the house."
>
> Dear John,
>
> Burning coal without making smoke is a great accomplishment. Where are you
> living now? How does your stove burn so cleanly?
>
> All Best,
>
> Dean
>
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Jul 20 14:03:54 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <SUN.20.JUL.2003.120354.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Hydrogen is an inefficient (50%) storage battery -- though yes -- very
environmentally clean.

If we use a zillion btu's per nanosecond today -- it would then be two
zillion per nano second on a hydrogen "economy".

There are better alternative "batteries" in development to harness
renewable energy at 80% of better rates.

Check -- just for starters:

Vanadium Redox battery:

"High energy efficiencies between 80 and 90% in large installations."

(Search and you shall be enlightened)

Start here:

http://www.ceic.unsw.edu.au/centers/vrb/

(A Taste is appended)

The VRB is also very environmentally friendly.

Of course -- all the alternatives suffer from one terrible deficiency --
they are not endorsed by G.W. Bush -- and thus not promoted by American
Mass media.

Peter

At 05:15 PM 7/20/2003 +0100, Mark and/or Jan Bigland-Pritchard // Low
Energy Design wrote:
>John Davies wrote (amongst other things):
>
>>Greetings Dean,
>>
>>Quite honestly I do not go with the "Hydrogen Energy Society". There are
>>much more direct means of mechanical and heat energy generation, which I
>>believe are more efficient. Of course I do not discount the possibility of
>>new technology which might produce hydrogen from water, very much cheaper
>>than the current methods.
>>
>I've been watching this thread with some interest, and picking up a
>variety of assumptions being made by different people about what a
>hydrogen economy might look like.
>
>My own opinion is that a hydrogen economy is only worth pursuing if (i)
>it can be done in a way that substantially reduces anthropogenic
>radiative forcing (i.e. the human contribution to climate change), and
>(ii) hydrogen is then seen as a compact means of carrying energy about,
>rather than as a means of substituting primary fuels.
>
>Criterion (i) dictates that - maybe not in the short term, but as soon
>as possible - the bulk of hydrogen generation should be by electrolysis
>of water, using renewable methods to provide the energy. That way, the
>only greenhouse gas emitted is water vapour, which the world's climate
>systems can deal with much more easily than CO2.
>
>Criterion (ii) means that it makes sense to run cars off hydrogen (using
>fuel cells), and it makes sense for a certain amount of hydrogen to be
>used to enable demand and supply of electricity to be better matched (in
>this it will compete with other systems such as pumped storage,
>flywheels, etc, which enable a higher system efficiency but are more
>difficult to site in a responsible way because of either the type or the
>extent of their land requirements).
>
>I would not want the world to get into the habit of (for example)
>burning it for space heating - there are plenty of more environmentally
>responsible alternatives in just about any location - though it may make
>sense for at least a proportion of moderate to high temperature process
>heat, where the serious competitors will still be natural gas, oil and
>electricity for some time to come.
>
>Some of the above is not yet economically viable. Dare I suggest,
>though, that it is the job of governments and of intergovernmental
>forums to make sure that it becomes so?
>
>Mark
>Bristol, England
>

*************appended*************

Other advantages of the VRB include:

? High energy efficiencies between 80 and 90% in large installations.

? Low cost for large storage capacities. Cost per kWh decreases as
energy storage capacity increases, typical projected battery costs for 8 or
more hours of storage being as low as US$150 per kWh.

? Existing systems can be readily upgraded and additional storage
capacity can be easily installed by changing the tanks and volumes of
electrolyte.

? Capacity and state-of-charge of the system can be easily monitored
by employing an open-circuit cell.

? Negligible hydrogen evolution during charging

? Can be fully discharged without harm to the battery

? All cells fed with same solutions and therefore are at the same
state-of-charge

? No problems of cross-contamination therefore solutions have
indefinite life.

? Long cycle life

? Easy maintenance.

? Can be both electrically recharged and mechanically refueled

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Jul 21 01:40:29 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.024029.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark and/or Jan Bigland-Pritchard // Low Energy Design"
<hyphen@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.

...del...
> >
> I've been watching this thread with some interest, and picking up a
> variety of assumptions being made by different people about what a
> hydrogen economy might look like.
>
> My own opinion is that a hydrogen economy is only worth pursuing if (i)
> it can be done in a way that substantially reduces anthropogenic
> radiative forcing (i.e. the human contribution to climate change), and
> (ii) hydrogen is then seen as a compact means of carrying energy about,
> rather than as a means of substituting primary fuels.
>
> Criterion (i) dictates that - maybe not in the short term, but as soon
> as possible - the bulk of hydrogen generation should be by electrolysis
> of water, using renewable methods to provide the energy. That way, the
> only greenhouse gas emitted is water vapour, which the world's climate
> systems can deal with much more easily than CO2.

Just from a very general standpoint, this approach seems flawed: If we
assume that "renewable energy" has a given cost, then with present
electrolysis efficiencies in the order of 50%, the effective cost of the
"source energy" is effectively doubled. There are better ways to store
energy than as electrolysed hydrogen.
>
> Criterion (ii) means that it makes sense to run cars off hydrogen (using
> fuel cells),

The problems associated with the very low energy density of hydrogen are
such that hydrogen is a long way from being accepted as a compact fuel.

and it makes sense for a certain amount of hydrogen to be
> used to enable demand and supply of electricity to be better matched (in
> this it will compete with other systems such as pumped storage,
> flywheels, etc, which enable a higher system efficiency but are more
> difficult to site in a responsible way because of either the type or the
> extent of their land requirements).

A loss of about 50% at conversion to a "storable form" is very high price
to pay for storing energy. How would this hydrogen be stored economically
for meeting demand? Again, the low energy density means huge "gas storage
tanks", if stored at atmospheric pressure, or very high energy consumption
for pressure storage.
>
> I would not want the world to get into the habit of (for example)
> burning it for space heating - there are plenty of more environmentally
> responsible alternatives in just about any location

Agreed.

- though it may make
> sense for at least a proportion of moderate to high temperature process
> heat, where the serious competitors will still be natural gas, oil and
> electricity for some time to come.
>
Dried wood is a superior fuel to hydrogen in many applications, because of
its radiant flame characteristics. Hydrogen has a basically "non-radiant"
flame.

> Some of the above is not yet economically viable. Dare I suggest,
> though, that it is the job of governments and of intergovernmental
> forums to make sure that it becomes so?

Imagine how economically viable most existing renewable energy technologies
would be if the US simply sold oil at its true cost.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
>

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Jul 21 01:40:52 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Fw: Chimneys w/ .jpg
Message-ID: <SUN.20.JUL.2003.224052.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Stovers. See Dick Boyt's message below complete with an instructive diagram on the Stoves website at:
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Boyt/chimney/chimney.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Boyt
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: Chimneys w/ .jpg

Stovers all:

With all the current talk about chimneys, I'm going to put in my two cents, probably too little, too late. This letter is in response to Tammy Bond's request for personal experience. I find that chimneys are useful, at least the small ones I use on my experimental stoves, and the big brick one in the center of our house that is fed by our two cast iron heating/cooking stoves.

The small chimneys evolved from balancing a stack of half a dozen tin cans to increase the draft above the combustion chambers of some of my experimental stoves that refused to stop smoking. Seeing a gust of wind topple the tin can tower, I tried ways to join them firmly together and yet still be able to take them apart again, if I choose. Ways that would make assembly and disassembly easy and that permitted me to easily vary the diameter and the height as needed.

I filed the jaws of an old pair of pliers, turning them into a crimper (see drawings). After removing both ends of the tin cans, I crimped all the way around one end of a can, and jammed it inside the un-crimped end of another. The length, depth, and number of crimps determine how tightly they will fit, and whether or not I can get them apart again. I found that if I want them permanently together, I could join them, and then pound out the crimped areas, using a section of boiler pipe as a mandrel. Lightweight, various lengths and diameters, no cost, easy to make, easy on, easy off, easy to clean, easy to attach to a permanent masonry chimney, if used indoors, or to a semi-permanent tin can chimney that goes up through the roof or out through a wall. Good for starting fires or giving one a "kick", or operate continuously during a burn.

Add a rotatable baffle to the stack to control the draft. The attachment of the stack to the stove is easily done by modifying other sizes of cans to make a "top hat" adaptor . This adaptor can be placed on the stove to hold the stack of cans that fits down loosely over it. Loose connections make the stack easy to assemble and disassemble. Drill a number of small holes in a line up one side of the lower cans so you can see if the flame rises that high. I hope the sketches explain what words find difficult. If a precarious stack of old tomato cans makes you uneasy, you can always "cheat" and use stove pipe.

This might be a good place to refer to "The Kiln Book" by Frederick L. Olsen (second edition) Chilton Book Co, Radnor, PA (1983). While Olsen is referring to the combustion chambers of kilns, I feel that his statements also apply to the combustion chambers of cookstoves. "Grate area for natural draft... wood: ten times greater than the horizontal section of the chimney." (p. 58) "Chimney diameter is approximately 1/4 to 1/5 the [combustion] chamber diameter" (p. 61). "The taper on the chimney controls the rate of draft. Tapering reduces atmospheric pressure and increases the speed of draft thereby controlling the rate of draft which ideally should be four to five feet per second." (p. 59) "A tall chimney increases velocity inside the firing chamber. Too high a chimney can cause irregular heating by pulling the heat out of the kiln, not allowing it to build up within the chamber, thereby prolonging the firing. On the other hand, too short a chimney can protract the firing by decreasing the draft rate, which allows build-up in the firebox and does not pull enough oxygen into the kiln to allow proper combustion for temperature increase." (p. 61)

Our home has a large permanent brick chimney that serves our two wood heating/ cooking stoves is quite another matter. For the past thirty years, we have lived in this 90+ year-old, 9 meter (30 ft) one-story square wood frame structure, with an unlined brick chimney rising up from its center to about a meter above the peak of a steep pyramid roof. We blocked off the old fireplace at the base of the chimney and connected above it the flue of a 1922 "Home Comfort" woodburning kitchen cook stove, and in the living room, the flue of a cast iron, space heating box stove. The 6" diameter flue pipe of each stove runs about four feet vertically, and six feet horizontally, to connect to the brick chimney.

During the winter, we run both stoves at full draft to minimize smoke and creosote build-up. No banking the fire at night means re-loading every four to five hours in very cold weather. We take down the stove pipes once a year for cleaning, removing from each about two pounds of hard, brittle, glassy-- to soft fluffy tar/ creosote. The brick chimney itself gathers hard creosote layers that are very difficult to remove, as the roof is too steep to climb, and I can reach only a little way up into it with scrapers from below.

During our thirty-year stay here, we have experienced five or six flue fires-- very scary, very dangerous. Usually, they happen in the middle of the night when we are awakened by a strange palpable roar and the crackle of over-heated stovepipe. If it has advanced far enough, we can see the landscape near our house illuminated by an eerie orange glow from the blowtorch of flame extending several feet above the chimney. Our flue fires always start from a very hot stove, work their way up and along the stove pipe, and into the chimney. With luck, we can stop the progress of the burn before it reaches the chimney by shutting off all air and by cooling the stove pipe with water. If we can't stop it, a full-fledged chimney fire takes over. If we can't put it out, at least we can slow it down. Over the years, fires have eroded the mortar between the chimney bricks. Before we re-grouted the bricks, we could see the orange glow of the raging fire inside the chimney through open cracks between the bricks. We keep a garden hose ready at all times, to keep the roof from catching fire. I also have a chemical torch that is supposed to lessen the ferocity, but have not used it yet. A full flue fire does completely clean out the chimney, so its not all bad, unless it also cleans out the house.

So why the heck don't we fix it? Tear the chimney out and build it right? It would cost less to let the house burn and buy a trailer. Abandoned for over twenty years, "this old house" has feasted colonies of termites, the foundation has hosted lush gardens of moldy dry rot, the ceilings have suffered from leaky roofs, and floors were never level or square. It is a few years older than we are, and it need last only a few years more. The important things-- the family, the forest, and the land-- will still be when we and the house are gone.

But in the mean time, we need space heat during the cold Missouri winters. In response to the recent interest in heat transfer, my next entry will be a description of a fan-driven counter airflow heat exchanger which I use on the flue of the cast iron living room box stove.

Fluently yours,

Dick Boyt

20479 Panda Rd

Neosho, MO 64850

rdboyt@yahoo.com

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Mon Jul 21 05:04:10 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
In-Reply-To: <015801c34f4a$9affdea0$0a9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.100410.0100.>

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:40:29 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

> If we
>assume that "renewable energy" has a given cost, then with present
>electrolysis efficiencies in the order of 50%, the effective cost of the
>"source energy" is effectively doubled.

I believe the economists would say that you have to account for the
"opportunity cost" of the renewable electricity involved. The point I
tried, and apparently failed, to get across is that renewable/green
electricity has a high premium in the market place. The fact that it
is often unscheduled (i.e. the electricity co is not able to predict
when it may be available) is not seen to be a problem until it
occupies 20% of the market. So my contention is that the concept of
electrolysing water to make hydrogen from "non-dispatchable" green
electricity is unlikely to be attractive before we massively increase
production from these sources. Plainly electricity from biomass has no
need of a storage medium so is in neither the non-dispatchable or
unscheduled classes.

>There are better ways to store
>energy than as electrolysed hydrogen.

What other than pumped storage and hydrocarbons have you come across,
excluding vapourware?

AJH

From hyphen at DIAL.PIPEX.COM Mon Jul 21 07:08:44 2003
From: hyphen at DIAL.PIPEX.COM (Mark and/or Jan Bigland-Pritchard // Low Energy Design)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.120844.0100.HYPHEN@DIAL.PIPEX.COM>

I wrote:

>>I've been watching this thread with some interest, and picking up a variety of assumptions being made by different people about what a hydrogen economy might look like.
>>
>>My own opinion is that a hydrogen economy is only worth pursuing if (i) it can be done in a way that substantially reduces anthropogenic radiative forcing (i.e. the human contribution to climate change), and (ii) hydrogen is then seen as a compact means of carrying energy about, rather than as a means of substituting primary fuels.
>>
>>Criterion (i) dictates that - maybe not in the short term, but as soon as possible - the bulk of hydrogen generation should be by electrolysis of water, using renewable methods to provide the energy. That way, the only greenhouse gas emitted is water vapour, which the world's climate systems can deal with much more easily than CO2.
>>
Kevin Chisholm wrote:

>Just from a very general standpoint, this approach seems flawed: If we assume that "renewable energy" has a given cost, then with present electrolysis efficiencies in the order of 50%, the effective cost of the "source energy" is effectively doubled. There are better ways to store energy than as electrolysed hydrogen.
>
me again:

Yes, on the whole, there are better ways. They are not always
available, though. Looking at electricity specifically here in Britain,
for example, the best option technically would normally be pumped
storage - proportionately small losses, very quick response. But
virtually all the suitable sites for pumped storage are already in use
(at least for hydro, not necessarily for pumped storage as well). Then
there's the energy storage required in cars (i.e. the petrol tank in a
conventional car). One reason for the continuing success of petrol and
diesel (sorry - gasoline and - well whatever you folks over there call
diesel) is the high energy density. Conventional batteries cannot
compete on this criterion; nor, at the moment, can flywheels or
compressed air. That leaves us with hybrid-electric cars - which still
use _some_ fossil fuels (until the manufacturers make them to run on
100% bioethanol or 100% biodiesel), and fuel cell cars running off
pressurised hydrogen.

Then there's that 50% efficiency figure. I wasn't aware that it was
that bad, but I'll take your word for it. While electrolysis remains
this inefficient, I agree that it makes hydrogen a much less favourable
option. If current research on the process cannot improve on this, then
probably we may as well give up on the whole idea. But as it has been a
somewhat neglected area of research until recently, there is reason for
hope...

>>Criterion (ii) means that it makes sense to run cars off hydrogen (using fuel cells),
>>
>The problems associated with the very low energy density of hydrogen are such that hydrogen is a long way from being accepted as a compact fuel.
>
I don't have the data to hand, but my understanding is that it is
getting there rather faster than the other fossil-fuel-free options
noted above. If you have data on the energy costs of compressing the
stuff, I would be very interested - and it could well cause me to revise
my opinions.

>>and it makes sense for a certain amount of hydrogen to be used to enable demand and supply of electricity to be better matched (in this it will compete with other systems such as pumped storage, flywheels, etc, which enable a higher system efficiency but are more difficult to site in a responsible way because of either the type or the extent of their land requirements).
>>
>
>A loss of about 50% at conversion to a "storable form" is very high price to pay for storing energy. How would this hydrogen be stored economically for meeting demand? Again, the low energy density means huge "gas storage tanks", if stored at atmospheric pressure, or very high energy consumption for pressure storage.
>
>>I would not want the world to get into the habit of (for example) burning it for space heating - there are plenty of more environmentally responsible alternatives in just about any location
>>
>Agreed.
>
>>- though it may make sense for at least a proportion of moderate to high temperature process heat, where the serious competitors will still be natural gas, oil and electricity for some time to come.
>>
>Dried wood is a superior fuel to hydrogen in many applications, because of its radiant flame characteristics. Hydrogen has a basically "non-radiant" flame.
>
Granted. But for many applications the relative lack of controllability
of solid fuel combustion rules it out. Of course, gasification is a
serious option; but even then some of us (certainly those of us in more
crowded countries than yours, Kevin) need to look at land use issues
before opting for timber-derived fuels in a big way. (Having said that,
we could be doing so a lot more than we are, at least here in Britain.)

>>Some of the above is not yet economically viable. Dare I suggest, though, that it is the job of governments and of intergovernmental forums to make sure that it becomes so?
>>
>
>Imagine how economically viable most existing renewable energy technologies would be if the US simply sold oil at its true cost.
>
...whatever that is... as I don't live in the US, I don't know the
situation there - except that petrol is hideously cheap because of
government (lack of) taxation policies. I therefore assume that you are
arguing for externalities to be properly taken into account in fuel
taxation policy - with which I can only agree.

>
>Best wishes,
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>
Yes, there are a lot of reasons why the much-vaunted hydrogen economy
cannot take off yet - but it is a component which I don't think we can
rule out in a responsible energy future. (Only a component, though.)
Of course, the first thing we ALL need to do (but, in view of the
comparative statistics for energy use, especially you folks over there
in North America) is get overall energy consumptions down through both
efficiency measures and lifestyle change. The thought that we could
have fuel cell SUVs being marketed as "green" options in a few years
time fills me with despair.....

atb,
Mark Bigland-Pritchard

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Jul 21 09:06:07 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.100607.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Andrew

With all due respect, you clipped a bit too heavily in trimming the
previous posting. I certainly would not want to be accused of supporting a
Hydrogen Economy. :-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Heggie" <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:40:29 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
Kevin said this:> > If we
> >assume that "renewable energy" has a given cost, then with present
> >electrolysis efficiencies in the order of 50%, the effective cost of the
> >"source energy" is effectively doubled.
>
Andrew said the following, with which I fully agree. It makes hydrogen
energy storage even less economically sound.

> I believe the economists would say that you have to account for the
> "opportunity cost" of the renewable electricity involved. The point I
> tried, and apparently failed, to get across is that renewable/green
> electricity has a high premium in the market place. The fact that it
> is often unscheduled (i.e. the electricity co is not able to predict
> when it may be available) is not seen to be a problem until it
> occupies 20% of the market. So my contention is that the concept of
> electrolysing water to make hydrogen from "non-dispatchable" green
> electricity is unlikely to be attractive before we massively increase
> production from these sources. Plainly electricity from biomass has no
> need of a storage medium so is in neither the non-dispatchable or
> unscheduled classes.
>
Kevin said this:> >There are better ways to store
> >energy than as electrolysed hydrogen.
>
> What other than pumped storage and hydrocarbons have you come across,
> excluding vapourware?

I haven't been looking, but this is a very deep question. A very obvious
one is lead/acid storage batteries, where the stored energy must be
electrical in nature. In the case where the eventual energy can be released
thermally through a boiler/furnace system, sun energy can be stored as
biomass. In the case where such a fuel has portability and fluidity
constraints, biomass can be converted to ethanol and methanol. None of these
are radical or advanced panaceas. They all (there are many more) work.
However, as there is no such thing as a "Universal Stove", there is no such
thing as a "Universal Energy Storage System". For example, there is no
point in converting a low grade petrochemical to Diesel fuel by addition of
renewable hydrogen, if the driven device is to be a gasoline engine. And
there is no point in using wind power to generate hydrogen to storage for
building heating, when the windmill could be used to directly drive a heat
pump to produce stored hot water for later use.

One major problem with comparing various energy forms is the serious lack
of a valid comparison basis, and the same problem exists with energy storage
systems. For example, what is the "better" fuel: one selling for $3 per
million BTU, or one selling for $15 per million BTU? Both coal and JP4 can
be used in a suitable stationary stove for cooking, but coal is of little
value to the Jet Pilot, even if you gave it to him for nothing. Similar
problems exist in doing a sensible "total comparison" of the merits of
various energy storage strategies.

Best wishes,

Kevin

>
> AJH

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Mon Jul 21 10:02:02 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.080202.0600.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Hi all

To Kevin and other writers on hydrogen. I recommend that we tie this
subject
in as much as possible to the subject of stoves - on this list. Here are a
few of the stoves-related hydrogen topics that come to mind:

1. H2 would seem to work pretty well as a household cooking fuel -
based only on its cleanliness. It solves nicely (by avoiding the need for)
all the chimney problems (and thanks very much to Dick Boyt for a great
submission today on low-cost chimney design.)

2. If a huge number of other problems are solved, H2s availability way
off in the future could be tied to its availability for the transport
sector - around the world. Problems of RE production, efficient transport
and storage (nanotubes?), etc will have had to be solved by then.

3. But the main H2 point I forgot to mention earlier is one we brought
up on "stoves" about 8 months ago - that it could be a nice Co-product from
the manufacture of charcoal - charcoal which is inserted in the ground as
done a thousand years ago in Brazil - as a soil improver (Terra Preta
soils). This won't happen of course until we get serious about global
warming - but does anyone know any better way to "permanently" remove CO2
from our atmosphere? Dumping it back deep in the ground or the oceans has
only potential negative consequences - whereas disposal in the form of
charcoal in the upper ground layer appears to be all positive. I can
foresee scenarios where we are really looking for ways not just to slow down
or stop CO2 production - but to actively work for CO2 removal. Suppose
that CO2 removal is worth $20 per tonne (2 cents per kilo) - then the carbon
is worth 7.3 cents per kilo (44/12 ratio).

4. As I am running out the door momentarily to Peru - I will figure out
the next economic steps on the way - but a local facility that is being paid
by the big CO2 producers in part for sequestering this charcoal could be
part of the answer. The same process will also be mitigating particulates
(for both health and GW reasons) and CO, CH4, etc emissions. Tami Bond on
this list can tell us a lot about how bad particulates are compared to CO2 -
maybe hundreds of times worse per gram. And stoves are some of the worst
particulate offenders.

5. The local H2/charcoal producer is also hopefully using waste heat for
some other productive (electrical generation?) purpose. This local factory
might just have enough useful H2 left over to sell to a local populace that
is using it for cooking. That populace is supplying the biomass (including
ag wastes) and is accepting the sequestering charcoal. The charcoal is then
doing a lot to enhance the local growing conditions - and even more CO2 is
sequestered - albeit temporarily.

5. Why does charcoal work so well as a soil additive? I am hearing
that people don't really know - but maybe because it supplies a good "home"
for
the "bugs" needed for a healthy soil (charcoal has a nice cell structure).
Lots to learn on this subject.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.

<snip>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Jul 21 11:26:46 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.122646.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Andrew

With all due respect, you clipped a bit too heavily in trimming the
previous posting. I certainly would not want to be accused of supporting a
Hydrogen Economy. :-)

> I believe the economists would say that you have to account for the
> "opportunity cost" of the renewable electricity involved. The point I
> tried, and apparently failed, to get across is that renewable/green
> electricity has a high premium in the market place. The fact that it
> is often unscheduled (i.e. the electricity co is not able to predict
> when it may be available) is not seen to be a problem until it
> occupies 20% of the market. So my contention is that the concept of
> electrolysing water to make hydrogen from "non-dispatchable" green
> electricity is unlikely to be attractive before we massively increase
> production from these sources. Plainly electricity from biomass has no
> need of a storage medium so is in neither the non-dispatchable or
> unscheduled classes.
>
Kevin said this:> >There are better ways to store
> >energy than as electrolysed hydrogen.
>
Andrew asked this:> What other than pumped storage and hydrocarbons have
you come across,
> excluding vapourware?

Best wishes,

Kevin

>
> AJH

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Mon Jul 21 11:39:34 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Terra Petra revisited (was hydrogen...)
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.113934.EDT.>

In a message dated 7/21/03 10:14:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ronallarson@QWEST.NET writes:

>
> 5. Why does charcoal work so well as a soil additive? I am hearing
> that people don't really know - but maybe because it supplies a good "home"
> for
> the "bugs" needed for a healthy soil (charcoal has a nice cell structure).
> Lots to learn on this subject.
>
> Ron
>

DD The question should be "Why does charcoal work so well as a soil additive
OTHER than what we already know to be true?"
DD Clean charcoal has all of the specifications as an ideal soil amendment
to clay soils for at least the following dozen reasons:
1) Charcoal stores water in the soil
2) Charcoal stores oxygen in the soil
3) Charcoal provides a pours medium for root growth
4) Charcoal does not bind together or compact without additional help,
reducing compaction
5) Charcoal attracts and stores nutrients
6) Charcoal provides an enormous surface area for many types of beneficial
organisms
7) Charcoal absorbs toxins
8) Charcoal buffers pH
9) Charcoal buffers soil salinity
10) Charcoal releases CO2 at ground level for the plants as it decays
11) Charcoal is resistant to rapid decay
12) Charcoal is a lightweight media for starting plants in greenhouses where
handling is energy intensive
13) Charcoal warms rapidly in the sun in cold climates. *
14) Whatever else I missed

Daniel Dimiduk

* Note: I choose a bakers dozen (13) as a unit because many of our stovers
are also familiar with baking. ;-)

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Jul 21 11:59:02 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.125902.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron
Subject: Re: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.

> Hi all
>
> To Kevin and other writers on hydrogen. I recommend that we tie this
> subject
> in as much as possible to the subject of stoves - on this list. Here are
a
> few of the stoves-related hydrogen topics that come to mind:
>
> 1. H2 would seem to work pretty well as a household cooking fuel -
> based only on its cleanliness. It solves nicely (by avoiding the need
for)
> all the chimney problems (and thanks very much to Dick Boyt for a great
> submission today on low-cost chimney design.)

I would feel that switching to hydrogen is a very complex and costly way to
eliminate a chimney, especially when they can be made so simply.

A dirty chimney is a Monument to a stove which is poorly designed and/or
poorly operated.
>
> 2. If a huge number of other problems are solved, H2s availability way
> off in the future could be tied to its availability for the transport
> sector - around the world. Problems of RE production, efficient transport
> and storage (nanotubes?), etc will have had to be solved by then.

Solving "The Hydrogen Problem" is well beyond the scope of the Stoves List.
However, designing, manufacturing and distributing suitable stoves for
burning various biomass sourced fuels is well within the capabilities of
List Members.
>
> 3. But the main H2 point I forgot to mention earlier is one we brought
> up on "stoves" about 8 months ago - that it could be a nice Co-product
from
> the manufacture of charcoal - charcoal which is inserted in the ground as
> done a thousand years ago in Brazil - as a soil improver (Terra Preta
> soils). This won't happen of course until we get serious about global
> warming - but does anyone know any better way to "permanently" remove CO2
> from our atmosphere? Dumping it back deep in the ground or the oceans
has
> only potential negative consequences - whereas disposal in the form of
> charcoal in the upper ground layer appears to be all positive. I can
> foresee scenarios where we are really looking for ways not just to slow
down
> or stop CO2 production - but to actively work for CO2 removal. Suppose
> that CO2 removal is worth $20 per tonne (2 cents per kilo) - then the
carbon
> is worth 7.3 cents per kilo (44/12 ratio).

The purpose of the Stoves List now seems to be to improve solid fuel stoves,
while in the past, its purpose seems to have been to make charcoal
effectively.

Possibly we need a "Re-Statement of Stove List Purpose?"

I don't think that producing hydrogen, or removing the CO2 buildup in the
atmosphere is a prime purpose of the Stoves List.
>
> 4. As I am running out the door momentarily to Peru - I will figure
out
> the next economic steps on the way - but a local facility that is being
paid
> by the big CO2 producers in part for sequestering this charcoal could be
> part of the answer. The same process will also be mitigating particulates
> (for both health and GW reasons) and CO, CH4, etc emissions.

Paying people for producing charcoal for burying is, I would suggest, a
long way off. SUV's will be outlawed first!! :-)

Tami Bond on
> this list can tell us a lot about how bad particulates are compared to
CO2 -
> maybe hundreds of times worse per gram. And stoves are some of the worst
> particulate offenders.

Has anyone thought about using a simple smokestack to vent the particulate
outside teh living space? :-)
>
> 5. The local H2/charcoal producer is also hopefully using waste heat
for
> some other productive (electrical generation?) purpose.

Most "integrated energy systems" that depend for their viability on the sale
of waste heat fail because they can't sell the waste heat.

This local factory
> might just have enough useful H2 left over to sell to a local populace
that
> is using it for cooking. That populace is supplying the biomass
(including
> ag wastes) and is accepting the sequestering charcoal. The charcoal is
then
> doing a lot to enhance the local growing conditions - and even more CO2 is
> sequestered - albeit temporarily.

Again, the present purpose of the Stoves List is not sequestering of C from
the atmosphere.
>
> 5. Why does charcoal work so well as a soil additive? I am hearing
> that people don't really know - but maybe because it supplies a good
"home"
> for
> the "bugs" needed for a healthy soil (charcoal has a nice cell structure).
> Lots to learn on this subject.

This is indeed a fascinating phenomenon. Has anyone sorted out the
"fertilizer benefit from ash" vs. the benefit from pure (nutrient free)
charcoal? Does anyone know how long charcoal will remain in the active
upper layers of soil, ie, how long it can sequester carbon when still
within the active Biosphere?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 11:40 PM
> Subject: Re: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>

From Mbobker at AOL.COM Mon Jul 21 17:24:11 2003
From: Mbobker at AOL.COM (Mbobker@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.172411.EDT.>

Dear Stovers,

Most interesting to see the discussion turn to Hydrogen. I will leave the
discussion of whether the thermodynamics can make sense to others with more
time to work through the quantification steps. But as we even begin to consider
household use, let us keep in mind two "burrning" issues:

(1) H is highly corrosive to most common transport and storage materials.

(2) H is highly combustible and therefore poses risk of explosion. It is,
for example, considerably more dangerous than kerosene.

Michael Bobker

From steve at SUSTAINABLEVILLAGE.COM Mon Jul 21 19:42:35 2003
From: steve at SUSTAINABLEVILLAGE.COM (Steve Troy)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology
In-Reply-To: <200307170400.h6H402G13256@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.174235.0600.STEVE@SUSTAINABLEVILLAGE.COM>

We carry a $225 Electrolyzer (details below). Stan Ovshinsky is also
planning to bring many of his new hydrogen inventions to the fall
conference (see http://www.sustainableresources.org).
Steve Troy

Electrolyzer and Hydrostatic column
Use extra PV, wind, or hydro power to make hydrogen for welding,
cooking, or heating. Just add water and electricity! This
Electrolyzer produces pressurized hydrogen you can save in a simple
storage tank (hot water, propane, or compressed air). Use for
welding, cutting, cooking, heating, running engines, or supplying
electricity with a fuel. With a wind generator producing 10-40 Amps,
you produce 1/8 to 1/2. cubic foot of hydrogen per hour. Includes one
electrolyzer, 3' hydrostatic control, and directions. Use hydrogen
with any propane equipment, just turn off venturi cavity. Store
hydrogen in propane tanks (only store up to 100 psi).Requires 2-4
Volt input upto 10-40 Amps. will gas at around 2 Volts. 7.25" x 10' x
14', 30 lbs.

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:11:07 -0700
>From: Dean Still <dstill@EPUD.NET>
>Subject: Re: acceptance of hydrogen technology
>
>Dear Bruno and Stephan,
>
>We find ourselves in a strange position at Aprovecho. Three years ago Enron
>Corp. gave us a 2.2 Kw very high DC voltage photovoltaic system with AC
>inverter which is designed to send excess electrical power back to the
>utility. The inverter blew up twice and we would have to pay about $5,000 to
>replace it. In this case, I think that producing hydrogen to be used for
>cooking and transportation might be feasible. I'm looking for a reliable,
>inexpensive electrolizer so Stephan's tip was appreciated.
>
>The renowned Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) published a review of
>the hydrogen economy in June. The paper concludes that "the energy lost in
>making hydrogen is more than made up by its extremely efficient use..."
>And, " decentralized production...using off peak capacity of existing gas
>and electricity distribution systems" means that production of hydrogen
>would not consume most of the energy it contains.
>
>Also, "If the hydrogen now used by U.S. refineries were instead fed into
>fuel-cell vehicles..., it would displace one-fourth of all U.S.
>gasoline-twice as much as comes from the Persian Gulf."
>
>The report should be found at www.rmi.org
>
>I have been dubious about hydrogen but I also tend to trust Lovins.
>
>All Best,
>
>Dean
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:22:00 +1000
>From: Peter Verhaart <pverhaart@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>Subject: Re: acceptance of hydrogen technology
>
>Dear Dean,
>
>Some comment between the lines.
>
>With best regards,
>
>Peter Verhaart
>
>At 20:11 08/07/03 -0700, you wrote:
>>Dear Bruno and Stephan,
>>Snip (before snap)
>>
>>The renowned Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) published a review of
>>the hydrogen economy in June. The paper concludes that "the energy lost in
>>making hydrogen is more than made up by its extremely efficient use..."
>
>I don't believe that. Energy (work) is dissipated in the electrolysis
>process, you need a higher voltage than the potential (can't think of the
>right word) of Hydrogen. The power you dissipate is the excess voltage
>times the current.
>How efficient is hydrogen used? Burning it in air means heating 80 % of
>nitrogen with it, efficient use indeed! Or would they burn it together with
>the oxygen, a 2000+ C fire to boil your potatoes?
>
>>And, " decentralized production...using off peak capacity of existing gas
>>and electricity distribution systems" means that production of hydrogen
>>would not consume most of the energy it contains.
>
>That is a financial argument, the electricity is cheaper but the polution
>with greenhouse gases remains.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:28:47 -0300
>From: Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda <rmiranda@INET.COM.BR>
>Subject: Re: About technology transfer
>
>Kevin: Time is relative. 40 years in at least 40,000 years since mankind
>discovered the open fire (and still very much using it) is nothing. rogerio
>
>
>At 04:04 a.m. 15/07/03 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>>Dear Rogerio
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda" <rmiranda@inet.com.br>
>>To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:18 PM
>>Subject: Re: [STOVES] About technology transfer
> >
>>
>> > Kevin: below my response to your Email from 08/07/03 -,
>> >
>> > Kevin Chisholm wrote
>> > Dear Rogerio
>> >
>> > >My views are basically that it is impossible to design a good "Universal
>> > >Stove", because the "total system" in which they work is very different,
>>and
>> > >not at all "Universal."
>>....del....
>> >
>> > Rogerio: I was refering to those who need a woodstove among the 2 billion
>> > out there without modern household fuel. I believe the majority of those
>> > are in the tropics, and also only to those who use wood as fuel.
>>
>>OK.... 1: The fuel is to be wood.
>>What size of wood? What type of wood? What moisture content? These all
>>effect the burning characteristics.
>>2: What heat release rate is required of the stove?
>>3: What cooking job is to be done?
>>Etc...
>> >
>> > You are right that different types of wood, different humidity and
>> > different operators can produce so many different combustions dynamics.
>> > However considering open fires, the trick is to eliminate as much
>> > combustion variables as possible and concentrate in three basic elements
>> > for a good woodfire: good fuel, right amount of oxygen and enough heat to
>> > ignite and hold the fire. In this respect Dr Larry Winiarsky with
>> > his simple and clever rocket stove, has made just that, eliminate many
>> > variables and concentrated in what is important for a woodfire. Of
>> > course, it is not yet perfect, but we made a good progress forward.
>> >
>> > Now, from "the rocket stove" and it variations of accessories ( full
>> > covered griddle or semi open griddle, oven or no oven, chimney or no
>> > chimney, water heater or no water heater, etc) I believe is leading us
>> > toward a "universal stove".
>>
>>I would suggest not. There are two basic "stove components", the "combustion
>>component" and the "cooker component"
>>
>>I would suggest that Larry's job (or Crispin's, or Lanny's) would be very
>>much easier if he was asked to design a "modular system", where he designed
>>a "combustion system" for several "standard fuels" and which had several
>>different outputs. This "combustor module" could then be added to various
>>"cooker modules". You would then end up with a "family of solutions" to your
>>cooking problems. This is what I mean when I say that there is no single
>>stove solution.... there are simply too many local variables.
>> >
>> >
>> > >Kevin: To view your example of the Brazilian Stove from a
>> > >different light..... it took 100 years for it to become widely
>>accepted...
>> >
>> > Rogerio: It took less than 100 years to be accepted. I guess it started
>> > about 100 years ago, but elderly people which I have questioning about it,
>> > remember this stove being used since before the second world war.
>>
>>OK.... that is still 40 years.... a very long time.
>>
>>Best wishes for every success with the good that you wish to accomplish.
>>
>>Kevin
>> >
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 02:13:45 -0700
>From: Dean Still <dstill@EPUD.NET>
>Subject: Re: acceptance of hydrogen technology
>
>Dear Peter,
>
>Answering between your lines. This is taken from the RMI article...
>
>All Best,
>
>Dean
>>>The renowned Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) published a review of
>>>the hydrogen economy in June. The paper concludes that "the energy lost in
>>>making hydrogen is more than made up by its extremely efficient use..."
>>
>>I don't believe that. Energy (work) is dissipated in the electrolysis
>>process, you need a higher voltage than the potential (can't think of the
>>right word) of Hydrogen. The power you dissipate is the excess voltage
>>times the current.
> >How efficient is hydrogen used? Burning it in air means heating 80 % of
>>nitrogen with it, efficient use indeed! Or would they burn it together with
>>the oxygen, a 2000+ C fire to boil your potatoes?
>
> RMI figures that greater end use efficiency, in a 42% efficient hydrogen
>using car makes up for the difference. They state that making gasoline is a
>75 to 90% efficient process. Making electricity from oil is 30 to 35%. In
>natural gas reformers hydrogen is produced at 72 to 85% or electrolysis is
>70 to 75%. Then they subtract 15% because of hydrogens lower heating value.
>But gas is now used at 16% in cars. Hybrids are double that. Fuel cell cars
>are 42% so the two figures multiplied together mean savings over current
>technology. The car is the pot, to use a stove analogy. Increasing the least
>efficient part of a system results in greatest overall improvement. As we
>know, improving heat transfer to the pot is much more important for saving
>fuel in a cooking stove compared to improving combustion efficiency because
>HTE is so much poorer.
>>
>>>And, " decentralized production...using off peak capacity of existing gas
>>>and electricity distribution systems" means that production of hydrogen
>>>would not consume most of the energy it contains.
>>
>>That is a financial argument, the electricity is cheaper but the polution
>>with greenhouse gases remains.
>
>Again the greater production of CO2 is more than balanced out, RMI says, by
>greater end use efficiency. I only pass this on as information. This topic
>is so complicated that I am quite out of my depth and having found that much
>of the written word is false feel on strange ground quoting "experts". I do
>trust Lovins however and have admired his work. If I were to bet on a
>horse...
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:51:39 +0100
>From: Andrew Heggie <andrew.heggie@DTN.NTL.COM>
>Subject: Re: acceptance of hydrogen technology
>
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:22:00 +1000, Peter Verhaart wrote:
>
>>At 20:11 08/07/03 -0700, Dean wrote:
>
>>>The renowned Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) published a review of
>>>the hydrogen economy in June. The paper concludes that "the energy lost in
>>>making hydrogen is more than made up by its extremely efficient use..."
>>
>>I don't believe
>
>Taken literally neither do I, if the hydrogen is derived from the
>electrolysis of water, may be a bit debatable if from a thermal
>process co generating electricity.
>
>> that. Energy (work) is dissipated in the electrolysis
>>process, you need a higher voltage than the potential (can't think of the
>>right word) of Hydrogen.
>
>Are you thinking of electronVolts necessary to break the hydrogen
>oxygen bond? This is in fact a measure of energy.
>
>> The power you dissipate is the excess voltage
>>times the current.
>
>I though the power dissipated is the I2R of the current passing
>through the medium (acidulated water in my school day experiments).
>Are you suggesting there is a "wasted" voltage drop inherent in
>electrolysis? Like the forward voltage in a diode?
>
>>How efficient is hydrogen used? Burning it in air means heating 80 % of
>>nitrogen with it, efficient use indeed! Or would they burn it together with
>>the oxygen, a 2000+ C fire to boil your potatoes?
>
>You're bound to use the oxygen for something :-)
>
>
>>
>>>And, " decentralized production...using off peak capacity of existing gas
>>>and electricity distribution systems" means that production of hydrogen
>>>would not consume most of the energy it contains.
>>
>>That is a financial argument, the electricity is cheaper but the polution
>>with greenhouse gases remains.
>
>The electricity will be cheaper because the nuclear plant producing it
>costs the same to run whether it runs at full or half capacity.
>
>If an electricity production and distribution system ever has more
>unscheduled supplies (from wind/tide/pv) than it can accommodate (
>generally reckoned at 20% of total) by turning down conventional
>generation (and this has some efficiency bearing as spinning reserve
>can consume a fair proportion of the energy being displaced and the
>capital cost of the reserve needs accounting for) then, as the
>renewables have no variable costs associated with fuel, it will be
>necessary to find a way of storing it or losing it. As AD Karve has
>intimated, after pumped hydro chemical storage seems best and methane
>is an existing distribution technology.
>
>The drive for hydrogen seems to be mostly associated with fuel cells,
>and then wrt their use in automobiles in western economies.
>
>What I wonder is the effect of an hydrogen economy other than its
>apparent low efficiency of production. How much hydrogen naturally
>escapes into the environment? With distribution losses quoted as high
>as 20% of production (hydrogen is hard to contain at high pressure)
>and hydrogen being light enough (along with helium) to rise to the top
>of the atmosphere where it can have an ozone depleting effect par
>excellence, will the environmental cost be too high?
>
>AJH
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:09:15 +0200
>From: Crispin <crispin@NEWDAWN.SZ>
>Subject: Re: acceptance of good technology - hydrogen
>
>Dear Friends
>
>Is there more energy required to electrolyse water if it is kept inside a
>sealed tank?
>
>Can I put two tanks next to each other connected by a tee (for an
>electrical/chemical pathway between them) and put in a certain amount of
>water, then with one electrode inside one tank and the other inside the
>second tank, turn on the power and produce the two gases under
>(continuously) increasing pressure? Asking around the office brought a
>blank.
>
>That way I could eliminate a need for a compressor.
>
>I assume that there is some pressure at which no bubbles will come off the
>electrode, but even if the total amount of energy required is the same
>(electrolysis and compression) at least I could bypass the compressor itself
>and all its mechanical losses.
>
>Regards
>Crispin
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:36:08 -0300
>From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@CA.INTER.NET>
>Subject: Hydrogen
>
>I got a quotation from a significant supplier of Commercial Hydrogen in
>tanker wagon quantities, and it works out to about $C2 per standard cubic
>meter.
>
>He indicated that "onsite" hydrogen generators can produce hydrogen for as
>low as about $C1.5 per SM^3, for a large installation, to $C2 to $C3 for
>medium to smaller installations
>
>Tom Reed previously provided the following information:
>" ~~~~~
>CO and H2 have the same energy content. CO = 12.0 MJ/m3; hydrogen, 12.1
>MJ/m3 high heating value, HHV, and only 10.2 MJ/m3 LHV."
>
>At the site: http://home.att.net/~cat6a/fuels-VII.htm the heating value of
>Hydrogen is given at 48.5 kw-hr/kG, and kJ per g.
>
>Working backwards, and knowing that a gram-molecular weight of H2 weighs 2
>grams, the weight of a cubic meter of hydrogen would be about 1000/22.4*2 =
>89 grams. 1 SM^3 thus contains
>89/1000*48.5 = 4.36 kW-hr
>
>At $C2 per SM^3, the cost of Hydrogen is about $C.46 per kw-hr, or at
>present currency conversion rates, about $US.33 per kw-hr.
>
>Hydrogen is not cheap.
>
>Electrolysers are apparently very inefficient, because of the "Hydrogen
>Overvoltage" phenomenon. The Gas Supplier guessed that the electrical
>conversion efficiency in hydrogen electrolysers is in the range of 50%
>
>The following article doesn't have much good to say about Hydrogen either.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=384
>
>The Hydrogen Hallucination - The "Freedom Fuel" Leaves Us in Chains
>7.1.03 Mark Sardella, PE, Executive Director, Local Energy
>
>It's being called the "freedom fuel", capable of releasing us at last from
>the grip of the oil barons. The "hydrogen economy" is even the buzz of the
>bestseller list. But don't break out the party balloons yet, because
>hydrogen hasn't even the slightest chance of solving our energy problems. A
>bold assertion, perhaps, but the proof is contained in the simplest of
>facts: Hydrogen is not a source of energy.
>It is true that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but
>here on Earth all of the hydrogen is combined with other elements. The best
>example has two hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom, forming the
>familiar H2O water molecule. Four hydrogen atoms bonded to a carbon atom
>makes methane, which we know as "natural gas". But if what you need is pure
>hydrogen - the stuff fuel cells run on - you have to manufacture it. Doing
>so requires tearing hydrogen loose from whatever it's bonded to, which
>requires an input of energy. The energy you invest in breaking the bonds is
>essentially "stored" in the hydrogen, and you can get it back by allowing
>the hydrogen to bond to something again, as a fuel-cell does. So hydrogen is
>simply a storage medium - you have to put energy in before you get any back.
>It could thus be considered a carrier of energy, by it is by no means a
>source of energy.
>
>This notion of hydrogen as a storage device is vastly different from
>petroleum, which is clearly a source of energy. As with hydrogen, petroleum
>requires an energy investment before it is a usable fuel. You have to drill
>for it, then pump, transport, refine, and transport it again before it can
>be used as an automobile fuel. But in the case of petroleum, the fuel you
>end up with contains about five times the energy needed to produce it.
>That's why it's called a source of energy - the energy returned is greater
>than the energy invested.
>
>The distinction between energy sources and carriers is significant because
>the decline of our major sources of energy has reached a critical point. The
>production of petroleum, our most important energy source and the provider
>of about 40 percent of the world's energy, is now falling in more than 50
>countries. The falling production in these regions must be offset by
>increased production somewhere else, but as more and more regions head into
>decline, fewer and fewer places remain to pick up the slack. Significant
>increases in oil production require large oil reserves, but at this point,
>the Middle East is the only place that still possesses a reserve large
>enough to allow production increases on the scale needed to offset the
>collective decline of all other countries. Rates of decline, meanwhile, are
>accelerating, and within the decade even the Middle East will be unable to
>bridge the gap. At that point oil production will peak, and from there it
>can only begin an irrevocabl!
> e decline. Efforts by the petroleum geology community to nail down the
>exact date of peak are interesting academically, but the real trouble begins
>with the loss of oil stability, which is already happening. Price stability
>requires that excess production capacity be available, but excess capacity
>is down to around two percent of the market volume - far less than is
>needed. And with every developed nation's economic future reliant on Middle
>Eastern oil, geopolitical stability hangs in a delicate and unsustainable
>balance.
>
>If world oil depletion isn't distressing enough, the heating fuel crisis in
>the US poses an imminent economic threat. Natural-gas production from
>existing US wells now falls at an alarming 29 percent per year - a rate too
>steep to overcome even with 892 drill rigs working full-time to bring new
>gas wells on line. The inability to increase production apace with demand is
>already destabilizing gas markets, as evidenced by the current price hikes
>and storage deficits. At winter's end, the US had just nine days of gas
>remaining in storage overall, and the northeast region dipped to just three
>days of reserve. Propane and heating-oil also finished the winter at
>near-record lows, and even the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy
>Information Administration - a group well known for emotionless reporting of
>dire news - termed the situation "precarious." In its characteristic
>matter-of-fact style, the EIA writes in its April 16, 2003 weekly report,
>"The prospect of rebuilding propane in!
> ventories to prior year levels appears to be in jeopardy." The EIA goes on
>to discuss the possibility of supply disruptions as if they were normal
>occurrences as opposed to early warnings of a structural failure of the
>industry.
>
>If three different heating fuels all run short next winter, what market
>dynamics are likely to ensue? When oil and gas prices skyrocket, what's the
>alternative? Hydrogen? I think not. You might as well suggest we heat our
>homes and power our cars with batteries and flywheels. We'll need energy
>sources, not carriers.
>
>Some enthusiasts acknowledge that hydrogen is not a source, but that coupled
>with renewable sources, it's the perfect fuel. Unfortunately, that's just
>not the case. Hydrogen's low energy density makes it exceedingly inefficient
>to transport. To illustrate this, consider that a 40-ton tanker truck loaded
>with gasoline contains nearly 20 times the energy of a 40-ton truck loaded
>with compressed hydrogen. If both trucks deliver fuel to a filling station
>800 miles away, the gasoline truck consumes about three percent of the
>energy in its payload to make the roundtrip. But the hydrogen truck
>traveling the same route would consume all of the energy in its payload. Put
>another way, if you tried to run the hydrogen delivery truck on hydrogen, it
>would consume its entire payload making the trip, and have no fuel to
>deliver.1
>
>If it's not a source and it's a lousy carrier, why does hydrogen get so much
>attention? Are the 985 U.S. organizations that are listed as fuel cell
>developers, researchers, distributors, consultants, suppliers, associations,
>government agencies, and laboratories really on to something, or are they
>simply riding a tidal wave of government hype and subsidies? Are the coal
>and nuclear industries pushing hydrogen in hopes that they will get to
>provide the necessary energy to produce it? Once again the answers may be
>academic. It doesn't matter why we are fixated on an energy carrier while
>charging headlong into a source crisis. We must simply acknowledge the
>oversight and move on.
>
>Imagining that the simplest element in the universe held the key to solving
>our energy problems was exciting, but now it's time to awaken from our
>hydrogen hallucination and devote attention to the real solutions of
>improved efficiencies and sustainable sources.
>
>1 Final Report: "The Future of the Hydrogen Economy: Bright or Bleak?" Ulf
>Bossel, Baldur Elaisson, and Gordon Taylor, April 15, 2003.
>http://www.efcf.com/reports/
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:53:04 +0200
>From: "Robert J. van der Plas" <rvanderplas@YAHOO.COM>
>Subject: Re: About technology transfer
>
>Rogerio is right; there are too many local variables to produce a universal
>rural cooking stove. To address some basic elements might be a better way
>to go about. He mentioned:
>
> fuel to heat/combustion, and
> heat to pot transfer (including heat regulation).
>
>In addition, I'd like to add a different dimension: unless these components
>can be sold or home-made for $2 or less and result in user comfort that is
>much better than what people experience now, it will not be of much use to
>the 2 billion that Rogerio mentioned. Many of them are not even using
>wood, but agricultural residues (and thus even less uniform in quality),
>simply because it is easier and less time consuming to collect residues
>than it is to collect firewood. The current stove is home-made (i.e., for
>free), and the decision to buy one will be a very difficult decision indeed
>for any household that lives on less than $1/day.
>
>On the other hand, the peri-urban & urban have switched or are in the
>process of switching to charcoal. Charcoal is a much more uniform fuel
>than firewood or agricultural residues. Charcoal also is an inefficient
>fuel to use (from the macro-economic point of view, not from the household
>point of view). A uniform charcoal stove, that approaches LPG efficiencies
>and ease of use, and can be locally produced and sold for $5 would make a
>major difference in many countries..... All households that use charcoal
>now cook with a stove they bought - and which is likely to have a useful
>life of 1 year, or 2 years if replacement parts happen to be sold. Thus,
>they are bound to buy a new stove soon, and they might be interested in
>buying one that is more efficient than the one they used all along. The
>traditional model is likely to be sold for $3-5, and for a household to pay
>more for a better stove will need quite a bit of education, irrespective of
>the (laboratory) performance and quality of the better stove.
>
>Consider this: if a household used 8 kg of firewood per day in a 20%
>efficient firewood stove, it would need a charcoal stove that is 92%
>efficient to cook a meal and obtain an equal wood consumption (with a
>charcoal production efficiency of 12%, or 74% with a 15% charcoal
>production efficiency). It might therefore be better to concentrate, for a
>start, on charcoal stoves. Moreover, charcoal use leads in most countries
>to deforestation, which is most often not the case with firewood use.
>Charcoal comes from rural areas, thus reducing wood off take for charcoal
>production will also lead to higher wood availability for rural users.
>
>Regards,
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 09:28 AM 2003-07-16 -0300, you wrote:
>>Kevin: Time is relative. 40 years in at least 40,000 years since mankind
>>discovered the open fire (and still very much using it) is nothing. rogerio
>>
>>
>>At 04:04 a.m. 15/07/03 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>>>Dear Rogerio
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda" <rmiranda@inet.com.br>
>>>To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>>>Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:18 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [STOVES] About technology transfer
>>>
>>>
>>> > Kevin: below my response to your Email from 08/07/03 -,
>>> >
>>> > Kevin Chisholm wrote
>>> > Dear Rogerio
>>> >
>>> > >My views are basically that it is impossible to design a good "Universal
>>> > >Stove", because the "total system" in which they work is very different,
>>>and
>>> > >not at all "Universal."
>>>....del....
>>> >
>>> > Rogerio: I was refering to those who need a woodstove among
>>>the 2 billion
>>> > out there without modern household fuel. I believe the majority of those
>>> > are in the tropics, and also only to those who use wood as fuel.
>>>
>>>OK.... 1: The fuel is to be wood.
>>>What size of wood? What type of wood? What moisture content? These all
>>>effect the burning characteristics.
>>>2: What heat release rate is required of the stove?
>>>3: What cooking job is to be done?
>>>Etc...
>>> >
>>> > You are right that different types of wood, different humidity and
>>> > different operators can produce so many different combustions dynamics.
>>> > However considering open fires, the trick is to eliminate as much
>>> > combustion variables as possible and concentrate in three basic elements
>>> > for a good woodfire: good fuel, right amount of oxygen and
>>>enough heat to
>>> > ignite and hold the fire. In this respect Dr Larry Winiarsky with
>>> > his simple and clever rocket stove, has made just that, eliminate many
>>> > variables and concentrated in what is important for a woodfire. Of
>>> > course, it is not yet perfect, but we made a good progress forward.
>>> >
>>> > Now, from "the rocket stove" and it variations of accessories ( full
>>> > covered griddle or semi open griddle, oven or no oven, chimney or no
>>> > chimney, water heater or no water heater, etc) I believe is leading us
>>> > toward a "universal stove".
>>>
>>>I would suggest not. There are two basic "stove components", the "combustion
>>>component" and the "cooker component"
>>>
>>>I would suggest that Larry's job (or Crispin's, or Lanny's) would be very
>>>much easier if he was asked to design a "modular system", where he designed
>>>a "combustion system" for several "standard fuels" and which had several
>>>different outputs. This "combustor module" could then be added to various
>>>"cooker modules". You would then end up with a "family of solutions" to your
>>>cooking problems. This is what I mean when I say that there is no single
>>>stove solution.... there are simply too many local variables.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >Kevin: To view your example of the Brazilian Stove from a
>>> > >different light..... it took 100 years for it to become widely
>>>accepted...
>>> >
>>> > Rogerio: It took less than 100 years to be accepted. I guess it started
>>> > about 100 years ago, but elderly people which I have
>>>questioning about it,
>>> > remember this stove being used since before the second world war.
>>>
>>>OK.... that is still 40 years.... a very long time.
> >>
>>>Best wishes for every success with the good that you wish to accomplish.
>>>
>>>Kevin
>>> >
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:35:48 -0700
>From: shimadm <shimadm@YAHOO.COM>
>Subject: change of address
>
>Dear Sir,
>
>Could you please change my e-mail address to:
>mossesshim@yahoo.com
>for the discussion these days are becoming so intense that I needed
>another mail account for the STOVES.
>
>Sincerely,
>Shimelis
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:42:06 -0300
>From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@CA.INTER.NET>
>Subject: Hydrogen Technology
>
>Dear List
>
>Here is another reference on Hydrogen Technology..
>http://r.searchhippo.com/r3.php?i=3&q=electrolytic+hydrogen+production+efficiency&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eren.doe.gov%2F
>
>Electrolyser efficiencies are in the 40% to 50% range. Not a pretty
>picture...
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:10:11 +0530
>From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>Subject: virus or prank
>
>I have again received a message on the subject of kilns. It has again
>originated in Myanmar and is again a
>garbled message containing an attachment. In case others on this list have
>received it, please delete it. I have not sent any such message. It is
>either a virus or a prank.
>A.D.Karve
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:44:53 -0400
>From: Tom Miles <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
>Subject: Re: Winiarski Rocket Lantern
>
>I've been looking at the picture of Dean and his rocket lantern on the
>stoves website trying to figure out what make's the concept of the rocket
>work so well. I have decided that . . .it's the smile.
>
>Tom
>
>http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of STOVES Digest - 15 Jul 2003 to 16 Jul 2003 (#2003-145)
>*************************************************************

===============================================================
The Sustainable Village, LLC 717 Poplar Ave.
Boulder, CO 80304
email: steve@sustainablevillage.com web site:
http://www.sustainablevillage.com
voice 303-998-1323 ext. 100, 888-317-1600 fax 303-449-1348
Sustainable Resources 2003
http://www.sustainableresources.org
"Resources for the Developing World"

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Jul 21 21:08:35 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.220835.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Steven

Thanks very much for the introduction to your electrolyser system.

Could you please tell us a bit more about them?
1: Have you seen them in use, to be able to comment on general quality of
construction and expected life?

2: Would you have some indication of "electrolyser efficiency?"
Specifically, what portion of input electrical energy actually ends up in
the form of hydrogen energy?

3: If the unit was operating continuously, how long could it be expected to
operate before replacement parts were required?

4: In what applications are these electrolysers being used most commonly
now?

Thanks very much.

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Troy" <steve@SUSTAINABLEVILLAGE.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of hydrogen technology

> We carry a $225 Electrolyzer (details below). Stan Ovshinsky is also
> planning to bring many of his new hydrogen inventions to the fall
> conference (see http://www.sustainableresources.org).
> Steve Troy
>
> Electrolyzer and Hydrostatic column
> Use extra PV, wind, or hydro power to make hydrogen for welding,
> cooking, or heating. Just add water and electricity! This
> Electrolyzer produces pressurized hydrogen you can save in a simple
> storage tank (hot water, propane, or compressed air). Use for
> welding, cutting, cooking, heating, running engines, or supplying
> electricity with a fuel. With a wind generator producing 10-40 Amps,
> you produce 1/8 to 1/2. cubic foot of hydrogen per hour. Includes one
> electrolyzer, 3' hydrostatic control, and directions. Use hydrogen
> with any propane equipment, just turn off venturi cavity. Store
> hydrogen in propane tanks (only store up to 100 psi).Requires 2-4
> Volt input upto 10-40 Amps. will gas at around 2 Volts. 7.25" x 10' x
> 14', 30 lbs.
>
>

From brunom1 at YUCOM.BE Mon Jul 21 21:12:20 2003
From: brunom1 at YUCOM.BE (Bruno M.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
In-Reply-To: <7c.3b696a71.2c4db3fb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.031220.0200.BRUNOM1@YUCOM.BE>

Hi Michael,

May I correct something?

Hydrogen gas is NON-corrosive ( and not an oxidant).
Unlike some acids, salts, and oxygen of corse ( in wet environments ).
It's the opposite, it's rather a reductant.

However, hydrogen can interact with some metals (hardened steels)
to cause embrittlement; especially at high temps & pressure.

And indeed, we don't have to discus hydrogen on the stoves-list
any further, it's off-topic, because hydrogen is not,
and will not be a energy source or carrier
for the 3? world cooking stove.

Bruno Meersman
===========================
At 23:24 21/07/2003, MICHAEL wrote:
>Dear Stovers,
>
>Most interesting to see the discussion turn to Hydrogen. I will leave the
>discussion of whether the thermodynamics can make sense to others with more
>time to work through the quantification steps. But as we even begin to
>consider
>household use, let us keep in mind two "burrning" issues:
>
>(1) H is highly corrosive to most common transport and storage materials.
>
>(2) H is highly combustible and therefore poses risk of explosion. It is,
>for example, considerably more dangerous than kerosene.
>
>Michael Bobker

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\^/>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --
To reply to Bruno : mailto:brunom1@yucom.be

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Tue Jul 22 04:24:52 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.
In-Reply-To: <001701c34f89$5bf9fe90$3b9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.092452.0100.>

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:06:07 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

>Dear Andrew
>
>With all due respect, you clipped a bit too heavily in trimming the
>previous posting.

I certainly do clip heavily, helps to make up for those who don't and
send out 700line commercial posts to the list :-(.

> I certainly would not want to be accused of supporting a
>Hydrogen Economy. :-)

I know, I realise your position but wanted to comment further on the
small piece I quoted, rather to reinforce a point. In point of fact
the conversion via electrolysis looks even worse if the hydrogen is to
be used to generate electricity via a fuel cell, with no heat
recovery. Ron has declared the subject off topic for stoves so I'll
leave it at that.

>>AJH: What other than pumped storage and hydrocarbons have you come across,
>> excluding vapourware?
>
> I haven't been looking, but this is a very deep question. A very obvious
>one is lead/acid storage batteries, where the stored energy must be
>electrical in nature.

OK there are many types of batteries, with the exception of "fuel
cells" which has its chemicals changed in a flow process (as does the
redox and the high temperature fused carbonate cells) they all seem to
suffer from life limited by the number of charge-discharge cycles as
well as time, because the electrolyte deteriorates and have net
efficiencies of ~70%. Servicing the capital cost seems to be a bigger
issue but there does seem scope for dramatic improvements on recycling
them. I have said before that the cost of taking a unit (kWhr) from a
battery is around twice the cost of grid electricity locally. For IT
purposes this is probably an acceptable cost, for many of the other
things we use electricity for, cooking, vacuuming, refrigerating etc.
it is not.

Incidentally our local council have a fuel cell running on hydrogen,
it powers, via an inverter, our leisure facility and indoor pool,
which itself is heated by the waste. It operates in conjunction with a
natural gas powered ic engine.

AJH

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Tue Jul 22 08:05:49 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: International Seminar on Appropriate Technology for Fuel
Production from Biomass Oct 1
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.050549.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

From: "ARECOP Secretariat" <secretariat@arecop.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 2:52 AM

> International Seminar on Appropriate Technology for Fuel Production
> from Biomass (Appropriate Technology for Biomass Derived Fuel
> Production)
> October 1-3 2003, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
>
> Background
>
> When thinking of Global Warming caused by the burning of Fossil Fuels
> like oil and coal, it becomes apparent that these limited resources
> need to be replaced with renewable energy resources that do not produce
> harmful gasses that contribute to Global Warming. Among renewable
> energies, biomass has a distinct potential in that it can be made into
> a fuel of gas, liquid or solid form. Many Asian countries, particularly
> Indonesia, have a high potential of biomass energy sources.
> Specifically, if we produce liquid fuel like methanol or ethanol, the
> fuel can be used as a replacement for gasoline for cars, and can also
> be used as a fuel for Fuel Cells. The results of a pilot survey show
> that the waste of sawit palm when processed may be able to fulfill 1/3
> of the need for vehicle fuel used in Indonesia. Currently, aside from
> conventional technology like direct combustion and alcohol/metana
> fermentation, there have been other rather drastic developments in the
> field of thermochemical conversion technology, which can be produced
> from a wide variety of biomass materials. Therefore, it can be said
> that the conditions are ripe for the large-scale use of biomass as well
> as the need for less environmentally harmful fuels.
>
> Seminar Objective
>
> To provide an opportunity to exchange thoughts, experiences and
> information about technology used to produce fuel from biomass, and to
> create/strengthen the collaborative network between trainers, NGO staff
> and government workers throughout Asia, particularly Indonesia.
> Furthermore, in light of the above-mentioned issues, to attempt to
> develop and disseminate technology utilizing biomass appropriate to the
> conditions in Asian countries, particularly Indonesia, and to mitigate
> Global Warming and increase the standard of living of citizens
> throughout these countries.
>
> Seminar Theme
>
> Because biomass consists of organic material, it can become a fuel in
> the form of gas, liquid or solid. Among existing renewable energies,
> this property is unique to biomass. Therefore, this Seminar would like
> to focus on technology used to produce fuel from biomass material.
>
> In this Seminar, we will focus on technology that can produce high-
> quality fuel such as indirect liquefaction, biochemical conversion and
> charcoal production, and coordinate the seminar so that the
> participants can choose technology from those presented at the seminar
> that is most appropriate with the conditions of their respective
> countries. The topic is not only limited to technology, but will
> encompass other topics related to political and social issues, as well
> as energy resource research.
>
>
>
> Follow up
>
> After the seminar, participants are expected to make concrete projects
> concerning appropriate technology in the field of biomass energy. For
> this purpose, participants will take a sketch of the technology that is
> most appropriate with the highest potential among the technologies
> presented at the seminar, and then chose the kind of biomass
> appropriate to the local conditions. Participants will then look for
> opportunities to collaborate with NGOs, GOs, universities and private
> institutions to utilize the network that will have materialized during
> the seminar.
>
> Speakers and resource persons
>
> Speakers and resource persons have been gathered from Japan, Indonesia,
> and other Asian countries, and have extensive experience in the field
> of biomass conversion technology. Among the speakers are :
>
> "h Prof. Masayuki Horio (Tokyo University of Agriculture and
> Technology) : ??Prospect of Fluidized Bed Gasification Technology of
> Biomass??
> "h Prof. Masayasu Sakai (Nagasaki Institute of Applied
> Science): ??Production of High Heating Value Gas from Biomass & Its
> Applications ?V Fuel Gas, Gas Engine, Gas Turbine & Liquid Fuel??
> "h Prof S.C. Bhattacharya (Asian Institute of
> Technology) : ??Gasification??
>
> Organizer
>
> "h Yayasan Dian Desa/ARECOP (Asia Regional Cookstove Program),
> Yogyakarta-Indonesia
> "h APEX (Asian People??s Exchange), Japan
>
> Supported by : Japan Environment Corporation (The Japan Fund for Global
> Environment)
>
> Participants
>
> Total 100-150 people (from NGOs, researchers, government and private
> institutions)
>
> Registration
> To participate in the workshop, please register by 5th September 2003.
> The seminar is back to back with ??Regional Expert Consultation on
> Biomass Stoves in Small Industries & Institutions, 4-5 October 2003.
> You may opt to attend both events.
>
> Application for support
> ARECOP has limited budget available to support a number of participants
> for the Consultation. Please submit your application for support and
> registration form, by 5th September 2003. ARECOP Secretariat will
> announce the results of applications by 10th September 2003, through E-
> mail and/or fax.
>
> ----
> Asia Regional Cookstove Program Secretariat
> PO BOX 19, YKBS, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta
> Phone: 62?V274?V 885247
> Fax : 62-274-885423
> secretariat@arecop.org
> www.arecop.org

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Tue Jul 22 09:11:01 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Terra Petra revisited(was:acceptance of hydrogen tech...)
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.091101.EDT.>

In a message dated 7/21/03 1:05:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:

>
> This is indeed a fascinating phenomenon. Has anyone sorted out the
> "fertilizer benefit from ash" vs. the benefit from pure (nutrient free)
> charcoal? Does anyone know how long charcoal will remain in the active
> upper layers of soil, ie, how long it can sequester carbon when still
> within the active Biosphere?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
DD Good question Kevin, one which calls for farther study. We know some of
the benefits of ash, and we know some of the benefits of char. We don't know
the benefits of the combination, in different ratios. I suspect that the
variable chemical and structural make up of the two, will provide only ranges and
probabilities of benefit. Only when we know the exact make up of the
media(char) and the fertilizer(ash) can we draw a chart. The make-up of the soil it is
applied to, also is a big factor.
DD I suspect that even the type of char is a factor. Tars, oils, volitiles
and ash within the char matrix can greatly affect many factors. I suspect that
the best benefit to plants would be from a char with these characteristics:
1) High porosity
2) Low tars
3) Low oils
4) Low oils
5) High ash
6) Low salt
7) Moderate pH

DD It is probable that ash contained with in the charcoal particles would
have a slow release effect, adding to the plant growth value. I could see some of
the hydrocarbons strengthening this characteristic.
DD As far as the second question, again we are working with many variables.
We do know that charcoal found in somewhat inert, high pH environments has
been found in very ancient rock layers and caves. Charcoal from ancient forest
fires is found in very old rocks. On the other hand, I have seen lichens
thriving on charcoal in surface environments. Lichen produces acids which dissolve
rocks slowly. Even black carbon will eventually break down in such an
environment. There is a great need to study the breakdown sequence of charcoal in a
thriving, diverse, ecosystem.

Daniel Dimiduk

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Tue Jul 22 09:42:08 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Backyard gasifier
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.094208.EDT.>

Dear Stovers,
I have studied the parameters of the problems discussed on stoves list
for a few years now. Included on this list are: indoor air pollution,
greenhouse effect, biomass fuel handling and processing, efficiency of combustion,
controlling and harnessing excess heat, and so fourth. I believe that there
may an approach which could eventually solve some of these problems.
I purpose that a small gasifier be located outside the house,
providing cleaned producer gas to the house. This system could use lightly altered
conventional natural gas fired appliances. The primary alteration would be
changing the orifice on the burner to accommodate a lower energy gas.
The gasifier could operate on a once or twice a day batch mode,
utilizing larger sized fuel. The gas could be cleaned by wet sawdust filtering with
the sawdust being returned to the gasifier. A gas storage system such as a gas
bag or bubble on the pond system could stabilize the output.
If heat for the house is desired, a coupling system utilizing
convective flow, a blower, or a heat carrier such as circulating water could be used.
This system would not need to be very complicated to work. Could work
in parallel to a biogas system.
The charcoal produced could also be a by-product.
Any comments?
Daniel Dimiduk

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sun Jul 20 22:42:03 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: coal burning without smoke
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.081203.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

In the area where I live, we do not have any mineral coal, and therefore,
the word coal is used synonymously with charcoal. When I read John's
message, my first impression was, what's so great about burning coal without
smoke, because charcoal burns without smoke. Our technology of converting
agricultural waste biomass into char, gives people a renewable and cleanly
burning fuel, which is generated as a by product of agriculture. If the
starting material is in the form of cotton or pigeonpea stalks, there is no
need even to press the char into briquettes. We have been making vigourous
propaganda for this technology in India, and people are gradually coming
forward to start enterprises based on this technology. I have received
inquiries from many sugarcane growing countries for supply of the
oven-and-retort kiln. I am in the process of finding out the cost of
shipping the equipment. Alternatively, I can provide the drawing of the
equipment. It is very simple to fabricate.
A.D.Karve
-----Original Message-----
From: John Davies <jmdavies@XSINET.CO.ZA>
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Date: Saturday, July 19, 2003 11:42 PM
Subject: [STOVES] acceptance of hydrogen technology and some stoves.

>Greetings Dean,
>
>OK It is many years since I worked in the crude refinery, and now have my
>thoughts together.
>
>The basic but not necessarily only source of hydrogen in the refinery, is
>from the Naphtha Platforming Plant, where Straight chain naphtha ( raw
>gasoline ) C6H14 to C8H18 of very low Octane Number is converted to C6H12
>to C8H16 a circular chain ( aromatic ).of high Octane Number. Each
>molecule converted gives off 1 molecule of hydrogen. This large volume of
>hydrogen is used in the hydrogen treater units which remove the Sulphur
from
>the streams which make up Gasoline, Kerosene and Diesel. Converting the
>sulphur into Hydrogen Sulphide, which in turn is converted to pure Sulphur
>at the sulphur unit.
>
>I have no argument with the fact that most industrial hydrogen would be
>extracted from natural gas ( methane ) or other hydrocarbon sources, which
>to my mind would be cheaper than electrolysis, unless the electrical energy
>was generated by natural means, i.e. no indirect combustion involved.
>
>Quite honestly I do not go with the "Hydrogen Energy Society". There are
>much more direct means of mechanical and heat energy generation, which I
>believe are more efficient. Of course I do not discount the possibility of
>new technology which might produce hydrogen from water, very much cheaper
>than the current methods.
>
>This brings us back to the mammoth job we have to produce more efficient
>stoves and space heaters. In my part of the world the stove design has to
be
>adapted to burn coal, efficiently for both cooking and space heating. My
>estimate is that we have about 3 million people, burning an average of 1KG
a
>day of coal in winter and half as much in summer. This is burned mostly in
a
>brazier ( tin with holes ), where up to 50 % is wasted as lost heat and
>black smoke clouds.
>
>My stove so far has eliminated the visible smoke and brings most of the
heat
>into the house ( a chimney is essential ). I await emissions testing. And
am
>working on ways to direct the heat either to the pot or the house.
>
>Some are aiming for a stove that would burn either coal or biomass. As the
>two fuels have such different combustion qualities, this will be a tough
nut
>to crack. I have even found difficulty with getting different types of
>bituminous coal to produce the same rate of heat generation in the stove,
>there is
>much to learn.
>
>This leads me to believe that there will never be a single stove to burn
all
>types of biomass as the physical qualities of the different types are even
>more varied than coal.
>
>To all the stove developers,
>Keep up the good work,
>We have only just started to scratch the surface,
>Of a very big area.
>
>Regards,
>John Davies.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
>To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:27 AM
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of hydrogen technology
>
>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> Lovins says that hydrogen is made from natural gas...
>>
>> I answer with the proviso that I should by no means be considered a
>informed
>> source of information regarding hydrogen. It was only after reading the
>> paper by Lovins that I found myself again in the "undecided" camp after
>> years of deriding the hydrogen economy scenarios... The resource that I
>have
>> quoted should be found at www.rmi.org
>>
>> Amory Lovins states," Hydrogen manufacture and use is already a large and
>> mature global industry. At least five percent of U.S. natural gas output
>is
>> currently converted into industrial hydrogen...Nearly all hydrogen is
>> extracted (reformed) from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas..."
>>
>> All Best,
>>
>> Dean
>>
>>
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jul 22 10:18:14 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Backyard gasifier
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.111814.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Dan

Interesting that you should mention this!! I brought such a gasifier in
from China, for testing in my back yard. :-)

Basically, it was intended for agricultural waste, but I wish to get it
working on wood chips. It comes complete with a two burner gas stove.

I did one test run using small wood chips , about 12 mm maximum size, with
37% moisture, and the system does not work very well with such finely sized
and wet feed, but that is all I had at the time. It has grates with about
3/4" spacing; I should have listened to them. :-)

Moist wood chips hang and rathole in a bin. I had to poke it frequently to
keep it going. I expect to be able to do another test run within a week,
using larger and drier chips.

If anyone would like pictures, and an update on the results, please let
me know.

The basic gasifier system design is very simple... a refractory liner in
the fuel hopper, a grate, and a gas cleaning section with a fan. It seems
well made. Note that it cannot produce charcoal for removal... the
charcoal produced in the gasification process is fully consumed to more
gas.

Kindest regards,

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: <Carefreeland@AOL.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:42 AM
Subject: [STOVES] Backyard gasifier

> Dear Stovers,
> I have studied the parameters of the problems discussed on stoves
list
> for a few years now. Included on this list are: indoor air pollution,
> greenhouse effect, biomass fuel handling and processing, efficiency of
combustion,
> controlling and harnessing excess heat, and so fourth. I believe that
there
> may an approach which could eventually solve some of these problems.
> I purpose that a small gasifier be located outside the house,
> providing cleaned producer gas to the house. This system could use
lightly altered
> conventional natural gas fired appliances. The primary alteration would
be
> changing the orifice on the burner to accommodate a lower energy gas.
> The gasifier could operate on a once or twice a day batch mode,
> utilizing larger sized fuel. The gas could be cleaned by wet sawdust
filtering with
> the sawdust being returned to the gasifier. A gas storage system such as a
gas
> bag or bubble on the pond system could stabilize the output.
> If heat for the house is desired, a coupling system utilizing
> convective flow, a blower, or a heat carrier such as circulating water
could be used.
> This system would not need to be very complicated to work. Could
work
> in parallel to a biogas system.
> The charcoal produced could also be a by-product.
> Any comments?
> Daniel Dimiduk

From dstill at EPUD.NET Tue Jul 22 09:42:35 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Backyard gasifier
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.064235.0700.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Kevin Chisholm writes:
>
>Interesting that you should mention this!! I brought such a gasifier in
>from China, for testing in my back yard. :-)
>

>If anyone would like pictures, and an update on the results, please let
>me know.
>
>Dear Kevin,

I was going to buy a Chinese gasifying stove but couldn't afford the $500.
But if it works well, it seems very interesting. Can you test it for CO/CO2?
Be great to get a test done of the stove. Where do you live?

All Best,

Dean

From kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK Tue Jul 22 12:49:38 2003
From: kenboak at STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: New German Stirling engine developments
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.174938.0100.KENBOAK@STIRLINGSERVICE.FREESERVE.CO.UK>

Listers,

A friend emailed me this link for a new Stirling engine development
currently underway in Germany. This one has a good pedigree, it is based on
10 years of developments by Dieter and Stephan Viebach.

www.sunmachine.de

This engine/generator will be available in 1kWe to 4kWe sizes, and as well
as the solar powered application, is being offered as part of a wood pellet
burning system.

Perhaps we delve to far into the exotic hydrogen "fuelled" future too far,
we should reconsider some of the ideas of the past. Stirling built and ran
his first engine in 1818.

There is also a solar powered water pump featured on the sunmachine site.

regards,

Ken

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jul 22 12:50:48 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Backyard gasifier
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.135048.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Dean
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Backyard gasifier

> Kevin Chisholm writes:
> >
> >Interesting that you should mention this!! I brought such a gasifier in
> >from China, for testing in my back yard. :-)
> >
>
> >If anyone would like pictures, and an update on the results, please
let
> >me know.
> >
> >Dear Kevin,
>
> I was going to buy a Chinese gasifying stove but couldn't afford the $500.

As far as I know, I have the only one in North America. If it proves out, I
could probably sell them in volume for significantly less than that.

> But if it works well, it seems very interesting. Can you test it for
CO/CO2?

At the present, I do not have test gear for CO/CO2, or particulates. What I
simply propose to do initially is get it working so that the stove ignites
easily with the igniter system, and then run say 1/2 cord of chips through
the system, and see how tarred up it got. If things look good, then I
would get further into testing that could be reported quantitatively.

> Be great to get a test done of the stove. Where do you live?

I live in Downtown Barrachois, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Very few people
have heard of it. The population is 3. :-)

Kindest regards,

Kevin
>

> All Best,
>
> Dean

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Tue Jul 22 23:00:38 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Backyard gasifier
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.230038.0400.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Simulate your gasifier by downloading the downdraft gasifier model (3.5
MB) courtesy of Benny Gobel at the Technical University of Denmark

http://www.et.dtu.dk/Software/GasifierModel/forgasser.htm

Tom Miles

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Wed Jul 23 00:07:34 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: compact biogas plant
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUL.2003.093734.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Daniel,
Shipping (or airfreighting) the biogas plant to US would be horrendously costly. You can fabricate one by getting hold of two barrels having straight walls (not ones that are broad in the middle and tapering towards the ends). One of the barrels should have smaller diameter than the other, so that it can be slipped easily into the other. The broader barrel serves as the digester and the narrower barrel, that is put upside down into the broader one, serves as the gas holder. Fit the gas holder barrel with a gas tap at its upper end. Fix a horizontal piece of metal tubing about 2 inches in diameter and 8 inches long, near the bottom end of the digester. This tube should go about 5 inches into the barrel, leaving about 3 inches sticking out of it. Attach a rubber hose pipe to the outer end of this tube, in a manner similar to the exit water pipe of a washing machine. This rubber tubing should be longer than the height of the digester and it should be provided with a funnel at the top end. This tubing serves as the feed pipe. It should always be kept in a vertical orientation, except when you want to drain out the contents of the digester. For starting the gas plant, fill the digester tank with an aqueous slurry made out of about 10 kg cattle dung and water. Lower the gas holder tank into the digester tank. Keep the gas tap open during this operation, so that the atmospheric air in the gas tank is expelled as it telescopes itself into the digester barrel.When the gas holder has sunk into the digester, close the gas tap. Pour every day a slurry made of about 200 g flour and about a litre of water through the funnel. The starch would be digested in about six hours, and the resultant biogas would accumulate in the gas holder and lift the same out of the digester barrel. The amount of gas accumulated in the gas holder can be calculated by measuring the height by which the gas holder has come out of the digester. Test this gas every day and see if it burns. If the gas does not burn, just allow it to escape by keeping the gas tap open, and let the gas holder sink back into the digester. Close the gas tap after this operation. Combustible gas would be produced after about 10 days. One can then use it for cooking. Put a weight of about 10 kg (a sack filled with stones) on top of the gas holder, so that the gas would come out with sufficient pressure. An LPG stove can be used with this gas, but one has to provide more gas to the burner, as biogas contains about 50% CO2. Generally there is a nipple with a pin-hole at the base of the LPG burner. If this nipple is removed, you can use the stove for biogas. Otherwise use a laboratory burner with the nipple removed. As soon as one starts to cook, one should add a further quantity of 200 g flour to the digester. In this way, one would always have a full tank.
The barrels that we used had both 200 litres capacity each, but we were fortunate in finding one that was broader by about two inches than the other. Now that we have reached the stage of commercialising this technology, we shall have to get the barrels made to our specifications.
A.D.Karve
-----Original Message-----
From: Carefreeland@aol.com <Carefreeland@aol.com>
To: adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] gaseous fuel

Dear Karve,
What would it take for me to recieve one of these to experiment with?
Daniel Dimiduk

From carl.carley at ERICSSON.COM Wed Jul 23 06:41:21 2003
From: carl.carley at ERICSSON.COM (Carl Carley (BA/EML))
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: compact biogas plant
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUL.2003.124121.0200.CARL.CARLEY@ERICSSON.COM>

Very interesting idea, but I can't see how the feed pipe works, won't it be full of slurry to the level inside the digester?
Let me get this right, a pipe passes through the side wall of the digester near the bottom running horizontal, the opening of this pipe in the digester is roughly in the middle. A flexible pipe runs vertical outside the digester and connect to the other end of this pipe and acts as the feed pipe.
Is this what you mean?

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: A.D. Karve [mailto:adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN]
Sent: 23 July 2003 05:08
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] compact biogas plant

Dear Daniel,
Shipping (or airfreighting) the biogas plant to US would be horrendously costly. You can fabricate one by getting hold of two barrels having straight walls (not ones that are broad in the middle and tapering towards the ends). One of the barrels should have smaller diameter than the other, so that it can be slipped easily into the other. The broader barrel serves as the digester and the narrower barrel, that is put upside down into the broader one, serves as the gas holder. Fit the gas holder barrel with a gas tap at its upper end. Fix a horizontal piece of metal tubing about 2 inches in diameter and 8 inches long, near the bottom end of the digester. This tube should go about 5 inches into the barrel, leaving about 3 inches sticking out of it. Attach a rubber hose pipe to the outer end of this tube, in a manner similar to the exit water pipe of a washing machine. This rubber tubing should be longer than the height of the digester and it should be provided with a funnel at!
the top end. This tubing serves as the feed pipe. It should always be kept in a vertical orientation, except when you want to drain out the contents of the digester. For starting the gas plant, fill the digester tank with an aqueous slurry made out of about 10 kg cattle dung and water. Lower the gas holder tank into the digester tank. Keep the gas tap open during this operation, so that the atmospheric air in the gas tank is expelled as it telescopes itself into the digester barrel.When the gas holder has sunk into the digester, close the gas tap. Pour every day a slurry made of about 200 g flour and about a litre of water through the funnel. The starch would be digested in about six hours, and the resultant biogas would accumulate in the gas holder and lift the same out of the digester barrel. The amount of gas accumulated in the gas holder can be calculated by measuring the height by which the gas holder has come out of the digester. Test this gas every day and see if i!
t burns. If the gas does not burn, just allow it to escape by keeping
the gas tap open, and let the gas holder sink back into the digester. Close the gas tap after this operation. Combustible gas would be produced after about 10 days. One can then use it for cooking. Put a weight of about 10 kg (a sack filled with stones) on top of the gas holder, so that the gas would come out with sufficient pressure. An LPG stove can be used with this gas, but one has to provide more gas to the burner, as biogas contains about 50% CO2. Generally there is a nipple with a pin-hole at the base of the LPG burner. If this nipple is removed, you can use the stove for biogas. Otherwise use a laboratory burner with the nipple removed. As soon as one starts to cook, one should add a further quantity of 200 g flour to the digester. In this way, one would always have a full tank.
The barrels that we used had both 200 litres capacity each, but we were fortunate in finding one that was broader by about two inches than the other. Now that we have reached the stage of commercialising this technology, we shall have to get the barrels made to our specifications.
A.D.Karve
-----Original Message-----
From: Carefreeland@aol.com <Carefreeland@aol.com>
To: adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] gaseous fuel

Dear Karve,
What would it take for me to recieve one of these to experiment with?
Daniel Dimiduk

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Wed Jul 23 12:31:59 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: compact biogas plant
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUL.2003.123159.EDT.>

In a message dated 7/23/03 6:20:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN writes:

> For starting the gas plant, fill the digester tank with an aqueous slurry
> made out of about 10 kg cattle dung and water.

DD In this line you suggest to run the digester on cattle dung. I do not have
any cattle at this time.
DD However, I regularly produce green shrub trimmings which I belive may have
the proper C-N balance to produce methane. I also can obtain fresh grass
clippings to enhance the nitrogen. There is also a large supply of green fresh)
tree service woodchips to be had, which contain many leaves. I would be
worried that the woodchips by themselves might have too little nitrogen to fully
digest.
DD Another resource is used kitty litter. This is a clay granual saturated
with urine and poop. Can this be mixed with some of the other inputs to
create a workable feedstock mix? I would be concerned that the clay granuals
might settle and clog up the slurry,
DD Any Ideas? This is normally an idea discussed on biodigestion list,
however, small biogas units are frequently used for stoves, so it is not off
topic.
Daniel Dimiduk

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Wed Jul 23 13:06:25 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:33 2004
Subject: Regional Expert Consultation on Biomass Stoves in Small
Industries and Institutions Oct 4-5
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUL.2003.100625.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

From: "ARECOP Secretariat" <secretariat@arecop.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 3:03 AM

> Regional Expert Consultation on Biomass Stoves in Small Industries and
> Institutions
> 4-5 October 2003, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
>
> Organised by : Asia Regional Cookstove Program, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
>
> Biomass as the primary energy in the Asia region, besides being widely
> used in the domestic sector, is also used for other activities such as
> food processing on a more or less industrial scale for sale on markets,
> etc, as well as institution-based cooking (in schools, hostels,
> canteens, etc.). Besides, numerous small-scale industrial applications
> also use biomass-based fuels in the production process. Small/cottage
> industries, mostly traditional, are, of significant importance, as they
> help to sustain locally based economies in terms of local employment as
> well as in terms of local resources utilization.
>
> In 1995, FAO-RWEDP and ARECOP organized the ??Regional Workshop on
> Biomass Stoves for Industrial and Institutional Applications?? which
> primarily concerned with improving the conditions of biomass fuel usage
> in small indutries and institutions. It provided a forum for exchange
> primarily on the state of the art with regards to stoves and furnaces
> used in institutional and small scale industrial applications, and also
> on relevant critical issues.
>
> Since the 1995 Workshop, improved stove and other development program
> in the region have a renewed and expanded interest in the small
> industrial and institutional sectors. Various programs addressing the
> biomass energy technologies in small industrial and institutional
> sectors have been carried out in various countries, for example in
> Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc. Alongside the
> renewed and growing interests, there has also been development carried
> out on more advanced biomass stoves e.g. gasification stoves, which are
> at the research and implementation stage.
>
> The Regional Expert Consultation on Biomass Stoves in Small Industries
> and Institutions will be a forum whereupon actors working in this
> particular and related sectors will meet to exchange experience and
> ideas as well as discuss emerging issues. Besides this will also be an
> opportunity to establish links and contacts among participants where
> further exchanges and collaborations could be explored.
>
> Topics
> "h Technology
> "h Dissemination
> "h Policy relevant to biomass energy in small industrial/rural sectors
>
> However the topics of the workshop are not limited to the above and may
> include :
> biomass energy studies in small industries & health related studies.
>
> Participation
> Participation in the Consultation is expected from across sectors:
> government, non-government, private as well as multilateral
> institutions. Participants will be actors who have been involved in
> program implementation, research and policy related to biomass stoves
> for small industrial and institutional applications, as well as
> institutions involved in international cooperation in community
> development.
>
>
> Abstracts for paper and poster presentation
> Please submit your abstract for paper/poster presentation by 5th
> September 2003
>
> Registration
> To participate in the workshop, please register by 5th September 2003.
> This Consultation is a back to back event with International Seminar on
> Appropriate Technology for Fuel Production from Biomass (Appropriate
> Technology for Biomass Derived Fuel Production) 1-3 October 2003. You
> may opt to attend both events.
>
> Application for support
> ARECOP has limited budget available to support a number of participants
> for the Consultation. Please submit your application for support and
> registration form, by 5th September 2003. ARECOP Secretariat will
> announce the results of applications by 10th September 2003, through E-
> mail and/or fax.
>
> Address for submission & correspondence
> Asia Regional Cookstove Program Secretariat
> P.O. Box 19, Bulaksumur
> Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
> Fax: 62?V274?V885423
> E-mail: secretariat@arecop.org, arecop@ydd.org

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Wed Jul 23 13:11:48 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: compact biogas plant
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUL.2003.224148.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Yes, you have got me right. The feed pipe is taller than the height of the
digester barrel. When starch slurry is poured into the funnel of the feed
pipe, the higher pressure of the liquid in the feed pipe allows the
feedstock to enter the digester. It pushes a corresponding quantity of the
older (most probably spent) feedstock out. I forgot to mention the small
overflow tube that is to be fitted near the top rim of the digester barrel.
A bucket kept underneath the overflow tube collects the overflow.
A.D.Karve
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Carley (BA/EML) <carl.carley@ERICSSON.COM>
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] compact biogas plant

>Very interesting idea, but I can't see how the feed pipe works, won't it be
full of slurry to the level inside the digester?
>Let me get this right, a pipe passes through the side wall of the digester
near the bottom running horizontal, the opening of this pipe in the digester
is roughly in the middle. A flexible pipe runs vertical outside the digester
and connect to the other end of this pipe and acts as the feed pipe.
>Is this what you mean?
>
>Carl
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: A.D. Karve [mailto:adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN]
>Sent: 23 July 2003 05:08
>To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: [STOVES] compact biogas plant
>
>
>Dear Daniel,
>Shipping (or airfreighting) the biogas plant to US would be horrendously
costly. You can fabricate one by getting hold of two barrels having
straight walls (not ones that are broad in the middle and tapering towards
the ends). One of the barrels should have smaller diameter than the other,
so that it can be slipped easily into the other. The broader barrel serves
as the digester and the narrower barrel, that is put upside down into the
broader one, serves as the gas holder. Fit the gas holder barrel with a gas
tap at its upper end. Fix a horizontal piece of metal tubing about 2 inches
in diameter and 8 inches long, near the bottom end of the digester. This
tube should go about 5 inches into the barrel, leaving about 3 inches
sticking out of it. Attach a rubber hose pipe to the outer end of this tube,
in a manner similar to the exit water pipe of a washing machine. This rubber
tubing should be longer than the height of the digester and it should be
provided with a funnel at!
> the top end. This tubing serves as the feed pipe. It should always be
kept in a vertical orientation, except when you want to drain out the
contents of the digester. For starting the gas plant, fill the digester tank
with an aqueous slurry made out of about 10 kg cattle dung and water. Lower
the gas holder tank into the digester tank. Keep the gas tap open during
this operation, so that the atmospheric air in the gas tank is expelled as
it telescopes itself into the digester barrel.When the gas holder has sunk
into the digester, close the gas tap. Pour every day a slurry made of about
200 g flour and about a litre of water through the funnel. The starch would
be digested in about six hours, and the resultant biogas would accumulate in
the gas holder and lift the same out of the digester barrel. The amount of
gas accumulated in the gas holder can be calculated by measuring the height
by which the gas holder has come out of the digester. Test this gas every
day and see if i!
> t burns. If the gas does not burn, just allow it to escape by keeping
> the gas tap open, and let the gas holder sink back into the digester.
Close the gas tap after this operation. Combustible gas would be produced
after about 10 days. One can then use it for cooking. Put a weight of about
10 kg (a sack filled with stones) on top of the gas holder, so that the gas
would come out with sufficient pressure. An LPG stove can be used with this
gas, but one has to provide more gas to the burner, as biogas contains about
50% CO2. Generally there is a nipple with a pin-hole at the base of the LPG
burner. If this nipple is removed, you can use the stove for biogas.
Otherwise use a laboratory burner with the nipple removed. As soon as one
starts to cook, one should add a further quantity of 200 g flour to the
digester. In this way, one would always have a full tank.
>The barrels that we used had both 200 litres capacity each, but we were
fortunate in finding one that was broader by about two inches than the
other. Now that we have reached the stage of commercialising this
technology, we shall have to get the barrels made to our specifications.
>A.D.Karve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carefreeland@aol.com <Carefreeland@aol.com>
> To: adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] gaseous fuel
>
>
> Dear Karve,
> What would it take for me to recieve one of these to experiment
with?
> Daniel Dimiduk

From jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA Thu Jul 24 05:43:27 2003
From: jmdavies at XSINET.CO.ZA (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: Virus
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUL.2003.114327.0200.JMDAVIES@XSINET.CO.ZA>

ATT RON LARSON,

My ISP filtered out a virus infected mail , purported to have originated
from your computer, and sent to undisclosed recipient list. The virus is a
BUGBEAR type.

Regards,
John Davies.

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Thu Jul 24 05:46:58 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: Wood is good - WoodGas is better
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUL.2003.034658.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear STOVES and GASIFICATION LIST:

Wood was good enough for cooking through 1900, but as soon as natural gas,
kerosene, electricity and LPG came along, wood was only used by those who
couldn't afford the "real fuels". On the other hand, if you generate
WoodGas from wood first and then use the correct amount of air to mix and
burn it, the stove will be very efficient and have very low emissions. We
believe that WoodGas cooking can compete with these other fuels in the world
to come where the other fuels of choice are getting scarcer and more costly.

We at WoodGasLLC are developing many forms of WoodGas stoves, but are
focusing on a campstove for the US market first. The first forced draft
"toplit updraft gasifier" commercial model is now available as a WoodGas
Campstove at www.WoodGasllc.com. It is 15 cm high X 12 cm in diameter. It
burns about 10 g/m (~3 kW thermal) of twigs, chips, cobs, (10-20 minutes)
and especially wood pellets (40 minutes). It typically also makes 20%
charcoal which can also be burned in the stove or saved for higher purposes.
It uses a single AA battery which lasts 3 hours on high and 6 hr on low.

We call this Model 900 because there have been at least 8 major changes
before this one, all improvements in the lab or the field. Now we have
built 100 stoves that are ready to ship. You can see the stove at
WWW.WoodGasLLC.com and buy it at http://store.yahoo.com/woodgasllc/woca.html
for $60 plus S&H. (These first stoves probably cost 3-4 times this amount,
but we hope to get in the black by the time we make and sell 1000 stoves.)

We are offering this stove to the STOVES and GASIFICATION groups at REPP
because of their special interest in stoves and gasifiers. We hope you will
wish to own one, study it, cook on it, camp with it, and get new ideas from
it. These lists represent about 600 subscribers, so first come first serve
and it will be another month or two before we are ready to ship again. So
if you don't make the first cut, be patient and your stove will come as soon
as we can build it.

We at the Biomass Energy Foundation also hope that this US activity will
lead to developing better biomass and WoodGas cookstoves around the world to
fill a desperate need.

Yours truly,

Dr. Thomas Reed The Biomass Energy Foundation
The WoodGas, LLC
tombreed@comcast.com

From achiaren at ROCHESTER.RR.COM Fri Jul 25 14:29:30 2003
From: achiaren at ROCHESTER.RR.COM (Antonio Chiarenza)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: guestimating wood needs
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUL.2003.142930.0400.ACHIAREN@ROCHESTER.RR.COM>

I know this is the first time I have written to this list and I
am slightly off the focus to boot, but I am a total beginner
at wood heating and cooking and now I suddenly find that
we are about to relocate to a place where wood heat will be
the only practical option and have no clue how much wood
will be needed. if anyone can offer me an educated guess,
or point me to a site, book, or other resource that can help
me estimate our firewood needs, I would greatly appreciate
it.

here are the particulars.
located in rocky mountains (colorado) at ~8000 ft (the heating
season starts in september/october and probably runs through may or
early june)
the space to be heated (after closing off a large,
unweatherproofable room) is about 1000 sq. ft
it was built in the 30s (plywood) and insulated (somewhat) in the
70s
the living room (may also become the bedroom, see next point) has a
franklin "insert" in the fireplace
bedrooms, bathroom and some other rooms may or may not have electric
baseboards that mostly haven't been used since the energy crisis and
probably aren't safe at the moment so I am discounting them completely
when planning for wood use
the kitchen has a 120+ year old cooking range (also an electric
stove) but we may not be able to get enough hardwood to use it all
winter (I am given to understand that it must not be used with pine)
a relative who is there now (we are in NY) is asking around but
learned nothing yet, don't even know if we will be able to get hardwood
or only pine

I know that the most anyone can offer is a guess, but that is better
than we have now. literally I wouldn't know if we will need 10 cords or
3.

thank you in advance for any advice
--Antonio

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Jul 25 20:21:59 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: guestimating wood needs
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUL.2003.212159.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Antonio

Your question is impossible to answer, in that the wood heat required is a
function of the heat required to keep your house at the temperature you
desire.

The simple way to go is take in two loads of 8 cords, which should be more
than enough, and which should get you through the winter. Next year you will
know for sure what you need. A simpler way is to ask the previous owner or
tenant "How much wood did you burn last year?"

Another way is to do a heat loss analysis on the house.

Another way still is to borrow a bunch of electric heaters, and heat the
house for one day to the desired temperature, and calculate the "degree-day
Factor" for the house. Knowing the degree-days for the area, you can
project your total kw-hr per year energy requirements. Knowing that, you can
then work back to your wood requirements.

You mention a fireplace with a "Franklin" insert; they can range from poor
to good.... say 20% to perhaps 50% efficiency, assuming dry wood, and that
you don't smoulder the wood to death by trying to stretch a fire overnight.

You refer to "hasn't been used since the energy crisis.."... this suggests a
big heating bill. Note also that drafts and "infiltration loss" can be a
very large part of the energy loss.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Chiarenza" <achiaren@ROCHESTER.RR.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 3:29 PM
Subject: [STOVES] guestimating wood needs

> I know this is the first time I have written to this list and I
> am slightly off the focus to boot, but I am a total beginner
> at wood heating and cooking and now I suddenly find that
> we are about to relocate to a place where wood heat will be
> the only practical option and have no clue how much wood
> will be needed. if anyone can offer me an educated guess,
> or point me to a site, book, or other resource that can help
> me estimate our firewood needs, I would greatly appreciate
> it.
>
> here are the particulars.
> located in rocky mountains (colorado) at ~8000 ft (the heating
> season starts in september/october and probably runs through may or
> early june)
> the space to be heated (after closing off a large,
> unweatherproofable room) is about 1000 sq. ft
> it was built in the 30s (plywood) and insulated (somewhat) in the
> 70s
> the living room (may also become the bedroom, see next point) has a
> franklin "insert" in the fireplace
> bedrooms, bathroom and some other rooms may or may not have electric
> baseboards that mostly haven't been used since the energy crisis and
> probably aren't safe at the moment so I am discounting them completely
> when planning for wood use
> the kitchen has a 120+ year old cooking range (also an electric
> stove) but we may not be able to get enough hardwood to use it all
> winter (I am given to understand that it must not be used with pine)
> a relative who is there now (we are in NY) is asking around but
> learned nothing yet, don't even know if we will be able to get hardwood
> or only pine
>
> I know that the most anyone can offer is a guess, but that is better
> than we have now. literally I wouldn't know if we will need 10 cords or
> 3.
>
> thank you in advance for any advice
> --Antonio

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat Jul 26 15:34:37 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: guestimating wood needs
In-Reply-To: <3F21770B.D81EAFF9@rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.26.JUL.2003.143437.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:29:30PM -0400, Antonio Chiarenza wrote:
> the living room (may also become the bedroom, see next point) has a
> franklin "insert" in the fireplace

As Ken says, that may well be junk and a fire hazard, or semi-decent -- but
probably the former. If it is not a "franklin" insert, but instead a modern
insert, it might be quite good. Or you might want to just build a barrel stove,
which will certainly keep you warm.

(snip)

> the kitchen has a 120+ year old cooking range (also an electric
> stove) but we may not be able to get enough hardwood to use it all
> winter (I am given to understand that it must not be used with pine)

Why not? Pine works, although hardwoods are better, and since in a cookstove
you are usually burning it pretty hot, you shouldn't have a creosote problem.

> a relative who is there now (we are in NY) is asking around but
> learned nothing yet, don't even know if we will be able to get hardwood
> or only pine

You should be able to get at least plenty of aspen, but if possible, get
birch. I don't think you'll be able to get much of any other hardwoods in CO.

>
> I know that the most anyone can offer is a guess, but that is better
> than we have now. literally I wouldn't know if we will need 10 cords or
> 3.

You'll need at least 10 cords. And that's full cords (4'x4'x8') not "firewood
cords" which is about a pickup load, or 16"x4'x8' or whatever else the wood
seller decides to call them. Ken's advice to get 16 cords is a better idea, then
if you have any left over, it will be nice and dry for next year, since it will
surely be green when you get it. If you have your choice between green birch and
green aspen, take the birch, as it burns a good bit better once you get it
going. Birch is a whole lot better in the cookstove too, although maybe you'll
be able to cut the small mountain or striped maple there for the cookstove.
We lived for 18 years using only wood fuel for both cooking and heating, hope
to get back to that ASAP.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Jul 27 02:27:58 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: Design and Analisis of Kitchens or modified Lorena Stoves:
questions
Message-ID: <SAT.26.JUL.2003.232758.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

From: Christian Pablo Garcia Cochachi
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 8:53 AM
Subject: questions

Hereby I am pleased to salute to him and to present/display to me, I am called Christian Pablo Garcia Cochachi of Peruvian nationality age 24 years and am withdrawn of the prestigious National University of Ingenieria of PERU (UNI). You dira that because me estara writing, good my consultation is the following one, I am beginning to be my thesis to remove my I title of Engineer Mecanico-Electrico and as I have knowledge of the courses who takes in uni, like renewable energetica and energias, interests much to me on the contribution to the society that gave some of these subjects spilled in the course, is why my sera thesis on "Design and analisis of Kitchens or modified Lorena Stoves", whose aim you them saben.Lo that I want to do is use of tools of Ingenieria simultaneously to analyze the heat transference by means of a software and the vectorial field of the air flow by the compartments of the stove. But before making these analisis I must have an id! ea on the sizing or design of this stove, I that in some part of the world, like Kenya, Nepal, Chinese, mexico and others, already had study of field of several years on these stoves, and simultaneously were doing modifications coordinating with such village. But this stoves are determine the proportions in agreement of each region, mainly of the aspect cultural partner of the zone, simultaneously I want to design a modified lorena stove for the region of the rural towns of the PERU.No if you me can send information on the sizing or design or connect to me with people who estan put in this type of projects or study, agradeceria enough. Being thankful to him by its lent attention and waiting for its quick answer, I take leave of you.

chrisgacoch@YAHOO.COM

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Jul 28 18:07:05 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: Hydrogen FAQ
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUL.2003.160705.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Could this be why a sudden interest in activated charcoal??

"Adsorption of hydrogen molecules on activated charcoal (carbon) can
approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen."

(Peter Singfield -- Belize)

From:

http://www.sustainable.energy.sa.gov.au/pages/advisory/renewables/types/othe
r/hydrogen_energy.htm:sectID=48&tempID=52

Hydrogen Energy

Hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the world. It is very
chemically active and rarely exists in nature in its pure form. Usually it
exists in combination with other elements such as oxygen in water (H2O),
carbon in methane (CH4) and in numerous organic compounds. Hydrogen bound
in organic matter and in water makes up about 70% of the earth's surface.

Stored in liquid form, hydrogen is low weight, compact, high energy fuel.
It has the highest energy content of any known fuel with a gross heating
value of 142.04 MJ/kg (net heating value is 119.99 MJ/kg). Hydrogen can be
regarded an energy carrier, or secondary energy source, that can be used in
a number of foreseen applications such as transport, energy storage,
blending with other fuels to minimise pollution and emissions, and
displacement of fossil fuels for the production of electricity.

Current uses of hydrogen are in industrial processes, rocket fuel and space
craft propulsion. Motor vehicles and furnaces can also be converted to use
hydrogen as a fuel. Since the 1950's hydrogen has also been used to power
some aeroplanes, and hydrogen powered cars have been developed. Hydrogen
burns 50% more efficiently than conventional gasoline and petroleum used in
cars.

Another use of hydrogen is in fuel cells to produce energy.

Where Do we Get hydrogen from?

Steam reforming - Currently, most hydrogen is produced by the steam
reforming process. It involves heating fuels, such as methane and methanol,
with a catalyst to separate hydrogen from the rest of the fuel.

Electrolysis - Electrolysis separates the elements of water, hydrogen and
oxygen, by charging the water with an electrical current. Adding an
electrolyte such as salt improves the conductivity of the water and
increases the efficiency of the process. Electrolysis is unlikely to become
a predominant method for large scale hydrogen production. Research has been
performed into usage as an energy storage mechanism in combination with
photovoltaics.

Steam electrolysis - This is a variation of conventional electrolysis, with
part of the energy provided to split the water molecules added has heat
rather than electricity.

Thermal water splitting - At 2500?C water decomposes into hydrogen and
oxygen. One of the problems with this process is preventing water and
oxygen from recombining at the high temperatures used.

Thermochemical water splitting - Thermochemical water splitting uses
chemicals such as bromine or iodine, assisted by heat to cause the water
molecules to split. It takes several steps to accomplish this entire process.

Photo-electrochemical processes - There are two types of
photo-electrochemical processes. The first uses soluble metal complexes as
catalysts. When these complexes dissolve, they absorb solar energy and
produce an electrical charge that drives the water splitting reaction. This
process mimics photosynthesis, however, currently there is minimal
experience in this process. The second method uses semi-conducting
electrodes in a photochemical cell to convert light energy into chemical
energy. The semiconductor surface serves two functions, to absorb solar
energy and to act as an electrode. However, light induced corrosion limits
the useful life of the semiconductor.

Biological and photo-biological processes - Biological and photo-biological
processes us algae and bacteria to produce hydrogen. Under specific
conditions, the pigments in certain types of algae absorb solar energy. The
enzyme in the cell acts as a catalyst to split water molecules. Some
bacteria are also capable of producing hydrogen, but unlike algae they
require a surface to grow on. The organisms not only produce hydrogen but
can also clean up pollution as well.

Biomass decomposition and gasification/pyrolysis - Methane and ethanol can
be produced by the anaerobic digestion of biomass by bacteria. Sources of
such biomass include landfills, livestock wastes, and municipal sewage
treatment plants. The biofuels produced can be reformed or decomposed into
hydrogen and other gases via high temperature gasification processes or low
temperature pyrolysis processes.

Hydrogen Storage

When properly stored hydrogen burns in either gaseous or liquid state. When
combusted with pure oxygen, the only by-products are heat and water.
However, when burned with air (which is about 68% nitrogen) some nitrogen
oxides (NOx) are formed. Even then burning hydrogen produces less air
pollutants than burning the same amount of fossil fuels.

Liquid storage - Cooling hydrogen to below its boiling point of -252.7?C
allows storage as a cryogenic liquid without the need for pressurisation.
When cooled to its liquid state, hydrogen takes up 1/700 as much room as in
its gaseous state thus enabling a larger quantity to be stored and
transported. However cryogenic storage is a difficult and expensive process
and refrigeration to the temperature temperatures required consumes the
equivalent of 25-30% of its energy content, and requires special materials
and handling.

Gas storage - Hydrogen may also be stored as a gas which uses less energy
than converting to liquid form. The gas must be pressurised to store any
appreciable amount. For large scale use, pressurised hydrogen could be
stored in caverns, gas-fields and mines before being piped to individual
homes in the same way as natural gas. New materials such as carbon fibre
have permitted storage tanks to be fabricated that can hold hydrogen at
extremely high pressures, however at present, the costs of tanks and
compression are high. Thus, gas storage is not yet economically feasible
for transportation.

Metal hydrides - Metal hydrides are chemical compounds of hydrogen and
other material such as magnesium, nickel, copper, iron and titanium.
Certain metal alloys absorb hydrogen and release it when heated. Hydrogen
can be stored in the form of hydrides at higher densities than by simple
compression. However they still store little energy per unit weight.

Gas on solid adsorption - Adsorption of hydrogen molecules on activated
charcoal (carbon) can approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen.

Microspheres - Very small glass spheres can hold hydrogen at high
pressures, charged with gas at high temperatures where the gas can pass
through the glass wall. At low temperature the glass is impervious to
hydrogen and it is locked in. Customised glass spheres are currently being
developed for this purpose.

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Tue Jul 29 06:59:28 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: Hydrogen FAQ
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20030728160223.009f5140@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUL.2003.115928.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

So there is no cheap and easy (read commercially feasible) way to store
hydrogen.

-other than as methane CH4. or methanol CH3OH.
These are easily manufactured, stored and burnt.

WHY all the fuss about hydrogen then?

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>

The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only.
They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied
upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an
addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by email at
Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to
this email will have been checked with virus detection software before
transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or
damage that may be caused by software viruses.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf
Of Peter Singfield
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 23:07
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [STOVES] Hydrogen FAQ

Could this be why a sudden interest in activated charcoal??

"Adsorption of hydrogen molecules on activated charcoal (carbon) can
approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen."

(Peter Singfield -- Belize)

From:

http://www.sustainable.energy.sa.gov.au/pages/advisory/renewables/types/othe
r/hydrogen_energy.htm:sectID=48&tempID=52

Hydrogen Energy

Another use of hydrogen is in fuel cells to produce energy.

Where Do we Get hydrogen from?

Steam electrolysis - This is a variation of conventional electrolysis, with
part of the energy provided to split the water molecules added has heat
rather than electricity.

Thermal water splitting - At 2500?C water decomposes into hydrogen and
oxygen. One of the problems with this process is preventing water and
oxygen from recombining at the high temperatures used.

Hydrogen Storage

Gas on solid adsorption - Adsorption of hydrogen molecules on activated
charcoal (carbon) can approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen.

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jul 29 08:51:53 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: Hydrogen FAQ
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUL.2003.095153.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Gavin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Hydrogen FAQ

GG: So there is no cheap and easy (read commercially feasible) way to store
hydrogen.

-other than as methane CH4. or methanol CH3OH.
These are easily manufactured, stored and burnt.

WHY all the fuss about hydrogen then?

KC: There is a famous saying, no doubt said by a person who recently had a
well drilled: "Well drillers do not drill for water; they drill for money."

Is there perhaps a corresponding parallel as follows: "Hydrogen researchers
don't research for energy; they research for money."

Another thought that comes to mind is the question by Marie-Antoinette...
"What??? They have no bread??? Let them eat cake."

Other parallels could include "... bread and circuses...", "...pie in the
sky...", and "...the Emperor has no clothes..."

Even if one could develop a process for producing Hydrogen that was 100%
efficient, and even if there was no storage problem, the best possible
scenario seems to be that we would end up at the energy equivalent of the
Starting Gate.

The shallow rationale that it is an excellent energy storage material
because "Hydrogen is all around us as water", is indeed shallow. Why don't
we take Carbon Dioxide out of the air, and make synthetic coal, or synthetic
oil? The energy fundamentals would be similar, but at least, we would have
solved the storage problem.

I am not at all "against" Hydrogen. It is just that so far, I can see
nothing of substance or consequence to indicate that it has any significant
potential to positively impact on the coming energy crisis. The fundamentals
just aren't there. I do hope that I am wrong.

Am I?

Kevin Chisholm

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Tue Jul 29 09:23:17 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: Hydrogen FAQ
In-Reply-To: <003a01c355d0$a44a7f10$599a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUL.2003.142317.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Kevin,
[GGG] You and I are right - its the rest of the Buggers....

Tress stoer CO2 form the air and we can make fuel and displace the limited
resouce Oil form many aspects of our life by using wood as fuel in many
modern, automatic and highly efficient ways. Thereby eking out the oil
reserves for essential transport- remember we can run trains on Wood

Unfortunately until the Oil barons buy into forestry in a big way (heaven
forbid!) its money money money and to hell with the rest!

Just a happy thought for a grey day.
Maybe I can sell some boilers soon and then I can be otivated my money
rather thann poverty!
Cheers
gavin
Dear Gavin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Hydrogen FAQ

GG: So there is no cheap and easy (read commercially feasible) way to store
hydrogen.

-other than as methane CH4. or methanol CH3OH.
These are easily manufactured, stored and burnt.

WHY all the fuss about hydrogen then?

KC: There is a famous saying, no doubt said by a person who recently had a
well drilled: "Well drillers do not drill for water; they drill for money."

Is there perhaps a corresponding parallel as follows: "Hydrogen researchers
don't research for energy; they research for money."

Another thought that comes to mind is the question by Marie-Antoinette...
"What??? They have no bread??? Let them eat cake."

Other parallels could include "... bread and circuses...", "...pie in the
sky...", and "...the Emperor has no clothes..."

Am I?

Kevin Chisholm

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Jul 29 11:44:51 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: Hydrogen FAQ
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUL.2003.094451.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 03:47 PM 7/29/2003 +1200, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> Could this be why a sudden interest in activated charcoal??
>>
>> "Adsorption of hydrogen molecules on activated charcoal (carbon) can
>> approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen."
>>
>> (Peter Singfield -- Belize)
>>

Dear Thomas and list;

>
>IThanks, Peter!
>
>If hydrogen behaves like the dry cleaning solvent vapours adsorbed in
activated
>carbon, when the carbon is heated the adsorbed hydrogen will be released
again as
>gas.

Or -- it can also be simple pressure relationship. Charging to high
pressures -- a tank filled with activated carbon -- that then releases H2
as pressure is released -- finally reaching an equilibrium point -- then
needing a recharge.

Ergo my postings (to the Gas list though) about pressurized gasification.
In one example -- at 1600 PSI.

Gasification is still the most used system for producing H2!!

Purification of H2 is best done using membrane separation -- which also
really shines when done at elevated pressure.

So -- gasify in super critical water at 1600 psi or more -- then pass
through membrane separator -- say -- dropping pressure to 500 psi -- or
even 250 psi -- into a tank of activated charcoal -- which:

"can approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen."

Makes for a neat system!!

We can dream a little further along these lines.

Small batch super critical water gasifiers -- you load one time -- gasify
-- purify -- charge tank.

Then you have H2 for X amount of use -- in car (fuel cells) or stove -- etc.

You size your batch reactor accordingly -- so -- saying -- once per week
you process your next week's need of H2 --

And all at very efficient and "clean" -- levels -- and using just about any
biomass.

Cute -- eh??

Guess we have to wait for the Chinese to get going on this. They seem to be
the last nation practicing innovative technology rather than dreaming it??

I proposed this exact system a few years back -- in detail -- to the gas
list.

Should be in the archives.

Remember -- a small house unit that runs on garbage -- lawn clipping and
sewage to name but a few sources of waste biomass available.

Hey people -- come on -- in a real technical oriented society -- why settle
for anything less??

OK -- back to the WWII gasifiers!!

You can be sure no funding or support will be put into these style ventures
-- not in our domain at least.

But I did perfect the reaction vessel -- valving -- insulation -- etc --
for all of the above -- 25 years ago --

And still I "dream" of this technology of gasification "catching-up" --

I should stop dreaming and learn Chinese??

Or the Chinese learn English and study the gas archives??

Peter

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Wed Jul 30 01:56:15 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:34 2004
Subject: acceptance of good technology - hydrogen - Bryan Willson
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUL.2003.075615.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Bryan

I was wondering if there is a method of getting hydrogen out of some oneput
(like a bio-decay gas) using geothermal heat? The idea is that instead of
building a huge plant on top of a very large hole, one could use an empty
hole and pump a gas into it, which returned decomposed with hydrogen. This
might be very energy efficient as the geothermal heat is otherwise not doing
much, and it would not require the generation of electricity to decomposed
the gas.

There is a lot of geothermal heat around. It is much easier to pipe
hydrogen than geothermal heat so it would be 'useful'.

Some of the storage devices described seem adequate already. So how about
'reforming' the gases for 'free' deep in the earth? As you probably know
there is a theory that the oil we claim is 'non-renewable' is actually
manufactured within the crust of the earth from methane heated under
pressure - but that's another topic.

Regards
Crispin

BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

July 2003 Biomass Cooking Stoves Archive