BioEnergy Lists: Improved Biomass Cooking Stoves

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Nov 2 03:05:49 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: David Whitfield: Ecological Stoves
Message-ID: <SUN.2.NOV.2003.000549.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Stovers,

David Whitfield, CEDESOL, Bolivia, has provided us with his presentation to the Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) in Latin America meeting in July 2003. It is a very nice compendium of our collective work to date with good information on the CEDESOL promotions of retained heat cookers (Hay boxes) and solar cookers in Bolivia.

He makes a strong argument for the health benefits of improved stoves with pictures of villagers impaired by damage from stoves from Don O'neal (HELPS) and other sources.

You will find it in pdf format linked to the Stoves pages at:
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/

Regards,

Tom Miles

From robdeutsch at BIGPOND.COM.KH Sun Nov 2 03:14:26 2003
From: robdeutsch at BIGPOND.COM.KH (Robert Deutsch)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Try again
Message-ID: <SUN.2.NOV.2003.151426.0700.ROBDEUTSCH@BIGPOND.COM.KH>

Dear Listers,

I seem to have dropped off the list some how... this is a test to see if I'm
back connected to the STOVE and GAS lists. Thank you to anyone who answered
my message below, I think I was able to get all responses from the website
achieves... will try to follow-up soon.

Best regards,

Robert in Phnom Penh

===============================================
From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Sun Nov 2 08:04:01 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Forwarding Heggie contribution (on charring)
In-Reply-To: <003e01c3a024$a4abdfa0$9b6c0443@net>
Message-ID: <SUN.2.NOV.2003.130401.0000.>

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:01:15 -0700, Ron Larson wrote:

>Stovers:
> Andrew has exchanged some correspondence with Tom Miles and I, saying
> 1. That some of his mail has not been getting out to the full "Stoves"
>list. (and Tom has confirmed some troubles for others). Could anyone else
>who might have sent something in and not seen it go through send that
>message to myself and Tom and we will perhaps be able to figure out what is
>going on.

Well this post is partly to test the above, in fact I only noted the
one instance but I had not posted for some time.
>
> 2. He forward this particular message which said:
>
>> In addition to the current work of Elk and AD Karve, in 1979 the NRI
>> (Natural Resources Institute I think) built a kiln system that made
>> charcoal form the coconut husks and used the waste heat (cleanly
>> flared) in a heat exchanger which desiccated the coconut. This was
>> prototyped in Sri Lanka where 1.5tonnes of coconut shells displaced
>> 800kg of wood previously used in the dryer., not only was charcoal
>> made but also there was some tar recovery (for use as a preservative).
>>
>> Ref Breag and Harker 1979 Tropical Products Institute London.
>>
>> AJH
>
> 3. To this Tom has added today:
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Is this the reference?
>> Breag, G.R., and Harker, A.P.: The utilisation of waste heat produced
>during the
>> manufacture of coconut shell charcoal for the centralised production of
>copra.
>> Tropical Products Institute G. 127, 20 p. (1979).
>>
>> I remember this work at TPI but I don't have a copy of it.

Yes I think so but I have it listed as 22 pages. I have seen a
synopsis with pictures in a compendium isbn 1 899233 05 9 which is a
"popular format" reprint of isbn 0 85092 380 8.
>
> 4. So this paper perhaps gives more on the details of what we are
>looking for - char-making with waste heat utilization. Anyone have any
>leads on the paper and/or its main conclusions?

The summary in the extract I read mentioned planned full scale trials,
it also mooted the possibility of using the charcoal to replace "tea
prunings" as the fuel for tea workers' cooking, as the current use
(removal) of tea prunings was having a noticeable affect on soil
tilth, humus and fertility of the tea plantations. The off gas then
being used to dry tea (which in itself is a complex business as
indicated by a thesis I have ny Stephen Temple). His work was
investigating the complex reactions in simple fluidised beds, powered
by a waterwide gasifier.
>
> 5. I have visited Andrew in the UK and can say that he has some of the
>best insights on this sort of charcoaling and drying topic. He has doen a
>lot of original technical work. I hope he will take this chance to see if a
>new message will get through and by adding anything more on what he
>understands to be the key technical and economic issues.

As ever I can natter on for hours about the possibilities implied by
results of my little garden scale experiments, some parts of a scheme
have reached commercial scale in UK. Pulling it all together into a
thermally integrated system is a while off for us though there is
competition from a fundamentally identical scheme.

In post industrial worlds and under developed world the reduction in
capital cost of biomass harvesting and utilisation appears to be the
only way of it becoming viable (in the absence of massive increase of
fossil fuel prices). ATM it seems to me that the drive (government
lead) for electricity from biomass, cleanly, gives us similar price
per kW(e) as solar pv and a fuel cost infinitely greater. The only
advantage biomass has is it's "schedulability".

That's why I feel an integrated system is worth pursuing, whilst
straight forward thermal uses, like cooking in the third world and
space heating elsewhere is currently a better use.

In UK we have the most distorted playing field imaginable, we are rich
enough to be able to import vast amounts of our feed, structural
materials and energy that our own natural resource cease to be
managed. In response the other agencies involved in land management
throw large sums per hectare at "restoring" features which were the
result of previous management, this often involves the destruction of
biomass on site, though some power stations now take the arisings at
well under cost.

My professional interest in the biomass combustion field has always
been in enabling sustainable (has this become too hackneyed a
description now?) and integrated economic management. I plumped on
high volatiles charcoal making because of its net energy content from
freshly harvested material, its ability to accept a wide size class of
rawstock without need of fine or expensive comminution and the
possibility of much higher added value than its raw calorific content
would suggest.

So we have been able to build parts of the "refining" system, are well
into developing a better thermal recycling for the waste heat and
modest electricity generation.

I have attracted no interest in a small scale compacting system to
avoid comminution at harvest. Despite having a novel idea which
requires and engineers 3D eye and a brain capable of solving Rubic
Cube type topological problems.

AJH

From elk at WANANCHI.COM Mon Nov 3 09:01:37 2003
From: elk at WANANCHI.COM (Elsen Karstad)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Shell Foundation Charcoal Survey
Message-ID: <MON.3.NOV.2003.170137.0300.ELK@WANANCHI.COM>

I've been informed that this mssg posted last week may not have made the list for reasons unexplained..... apologies if it's a duplicate for anyone!

I'm involved in a brief Africa-wide (desk-bound) survey of charcoal with respect to prices, popularity (dependency), and environmental impact.

I'd love to hear from anyone with information or literary reference on a country or regional basis. The main idea is to identify areas on the continent with the potential for commercial substitution of unsustainably produced wood charcoal via conversion of agri-industrial wastes and/or salvage of charcoal waste fines.

Any (&all) info is welcome.

Thanks.

elk
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
Elsen L. Karstad
elk@wananchi.com
www.chardust.com
Nairobi, Kenya

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue Nov 4 07:56:59 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: charring vs.not charring
Message-ID: <TUE.4.NOV.2003.182659.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Mr.Deutsch,
the process of charring removes the volatiles from biomass. The
volatiles pollute the air, when biomass burns. In the charcoaling
process, the volatiles are removed and you are left only with pure
carbon as the combustible matter. Therefore, charcoal is better than raw
biomass as domestic fuel. If you want to use biomass as an industrial
fuel, as in brick making or lime burning, you can use raw biomass, but
use a properly designed kiln with a sufficiently tall chimney. Secondly,
raw biomass such as sugarcane leaves or husk of coconut is extremely
springy. Compressing them into briquettes requires enormous inputs of
energy and very heavy machinery. Many persons installed such machines in
India and then went bankrupt, because the high operating costs made the
product economically non-viable. The potential customers of the biomass
briquettes were mainly the industrial users, who normally buy wood. If
the briquette price is higher than fuelwood, they would not buy them,
because such briquettes are equivalent to wood in their burning
characteristics, calorific value and smokeyness. The domestic users
don't pay anything for wood, as they procure it for themselves from the
countryside. However, those users, who want a cleanly burning fuel,
would opt for charcoal. Since charred light biomass crumbles very
easily, you can briquette it even by using a hand-operated machine. We
are able to sell our char briquettes at the same price as wood charcoal,
and we mention the eco-friendliness of our char briquettes in the
advertisements, emphasising the fact that no trees are cut in our process.
A.D.Karve

>
>>From 29 October 2003
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>Can someone explain the pros and cons of converting biomass to char and then
>briquetting verses the conversion of biomass to briquettes?
>
>We are still looking at options for reclaiming coconut husks, sugar cane and
>other waste materials from the municipal solid waste stream and creating
>better income generating opportunities for waste pickers here in Phnom Penh.
>We are already promoting composting and recycling, but coconut and cane
>waste exceed our capacity. Interested to hear from anyone with experience
>with this type of project.
>
>Robert Deutsch
>Advisor, Community Sanitation and Recycling Organization
>Phnom Penh, Cambodia
>
>www.online.com.kh/users/csaro
>

From dstill at EPUD.NET Tue Nov 4 12:42:02 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Fw: vermiculite/cement recipe
Message-ID: <TUE.4.NOV.2003.094202.0800.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Friends,

Peter Scott sends this dicovery from Durban:

This last week in Durban we have discovered a foundry supplier who sells vermiculite but also makes an insulated brick from cement and vermiculite. Incredibly light , long lasting and can withstand the temps of the verm furnace approx 900 -1000C. THe bricks have been in use since 1949! We have already made bricks from it but have just decided to make a monolithic stove (with expansion joints and it is unbelievably light and strong ).

Here is the recipe:
20 Litres of vermiculite mixed with 3.3 kgs of cement
This is mixed dry then add 5.8 litres of water.
This is not fired but is lightly tamped into a form then dried for 10 days in a dry environment. I'll let you know more soon.

Peace and love to all,

Peter

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customize MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more.

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Tue Nov 4 14:28:32 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: vermiculite/cement recipe
Message-ID: <TUE.4.NOV.2003.212832.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Dean

Thanks for that forward about vermiculite and cement. It will work up to
temps at which the cement de-hydrates (the water leaves again).

I would like to add that if you want the cement to hydrate properly (in
spite of them perhaps doing it like that since 1949) it should not be dried
for 10 days but rather kept moist for about that same length of time and
then allowed to dry. 14 days would be better.

Cement hardens pretty rapidly for about 28 days and then very slowly,
continuously (almost) forever. If properly cured instead of dried, for any
given strength required you can cut down the cement content. For any given
amount of cement, you can get a higher strength by improving the curing
method.

For filling in the spaces in a cavity we have used cement concentrations
down to 3% and this sounds like a good method. It is likely that the
mixture will stick to ceramic tiles (to line a Rocket chamber if you like).

Regards
Crispin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>

[snip]
This last week in Durban we have discovered a foundry supplier who sells
vermiculite but also makes an insulated brick from cement and vermiculite.
Incredibly light , long lasting and can withstand the temps of the verm
furnace approx 900 -1000C.

etc.

From solar1 at ZUPER.NET Tue Nov 4 16:49:35 2003
From: solar1 at ZUPER.NET (Sobre la Roca: Energ=?ISO-8859-1?B?7Q==?=a Solar para el
Desarrollo)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Global Energy Village Improved Stove paper
Message-ID: <TUE.4.NOV.2003.174935.0400.SOLAR1@ZUPER.NET>

Dear friends and colleagues,

Back in June I circulated a survey for a paper on improved stoves related to
health impact. Many of you responded, even asking for copies of the paper
once it was published.

Due to a computer problem, I lost a lot of data that wasn't backed up
including most of the names and addresses related to the responses received.
Tom Miles was kind enough to post the paper in pdf format at this address -

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/#David_Whitfield

One interesting aspect is that we included reference to our work here in
Bolivia in what can be termed integrated cooking systems. We call them
ecological cookers. We teach and promote the construction and use of the
Aprovecho type improved wood cooker, as well as different models of solar
and retained heat cookers used in combination. When the 3 types are used in
combination, we have demonstrated 85% fuel savings. When just using a solar
box cooker with normal wood or gas, we have documented 65% fuel savings.
One reason is that since the box cooker can serve also as a retained heat
cooker when there is no sun, it is more easily adopted into the culture
here.

It was very encouraging for us to learn of so many others out there who are
starting to use improved cookers in combination. Rina King was a good
example. I was so happy to hear that their "hot bag" was being circulated
at the Bolder Conference.

The Rotarian Wilfred Pimentel is another great example.

For those that requested copies, please download the pdf. If any specific
pictures are required for other purposes let me know and I can send them
individually. Comments are also welcome!

We encourage the practice of disseminating retained heat and solar cooking
as you are spreading the word on improved cook stoves .

Again, let me thank all of you that contributed information.

Un abrazo calorso
David

--
"When one door closes another one opens; but we so often look so long and so
regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for
us." - Alexander Graham Bell

David Whitfield
Director
CEDESOL
P.O. Box 4723
La Paz Bolivia South America
591-2-2414882 office 59i 715 16356 cellular

solar1@zuper.net
aguaviva@zuper.net
dewv@yahoo.com

http://www.solarcooking.org/media/broadcast/whitfield/bio-whitfield.htm

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/#David_Whitfield

 

http://www.thehungersite.com

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Wed Nov 5 10:37:11 2003
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: charring vs.not charring
Message-ID: <WED.5.NOV.2003.183711.0300.>

AD,

I would correct you on one count in your advice to Me Deutsch. While I fully
agree with you that the CONVENTIONAL high pressure briquetting is wasteful and
highly capital intensive, you leave out the fact that when chopped and
partially decomposed and then recombined in a water slurry, it is not only
possible- but far easier and less capital and energy intensive- to briquette
biomass in the right combinations (sugar cane and choir fiber included--here
lots of grasses might be added to ensure rapid breakdown of the stucture of said
raw materials). Admittedly the wet process briquettes are low density (.3 to .4
sg ) but they are highly efficient. We use only 260- 300 grams (two briquettes)
per person per day, in an open three stone fire, or an off-the-shelf unlined
/uninsulated /unchimneyed metal stove-- in an village applied cooking
situation. (The internationally reported average for wood consumption in the
same environment is 1.2 kg per person per day)

And you can have your cake and eat it too.

You can burn off the volatiles fairly efficiently, (With the right combinations
of pure biomass, we are burning pretty much smoke free, within 5 - 8 minutes of
start) then in a gassifier stove of the right design, we can opt to;
1) choke back primary air flow, inducing more secondary air, to gassifiy the
resulting char cake or;
2) leave primary air open and continue with the conventional burn which consumes
the charcoal (leaving only a white ash) or;
3) extract the char cake from the stove into a air tight can and at a later
point crush then compact it whole or in combination with other residues, (using
the same low pressure wet process) to create higher value charcoal briquettes.

We will soon have another progress report out on a stove which does just that.
Being developed by fellow stover Kobus Venter and myself.

Richard Stanley

www.legfacyfound.org

"A.D. Karve" wrote:

> Dear Mr.Deutsch,
> the process of charring removes the volatiles from biomass. The
> volatiles pollute the air, when biomass burns. In the charcoaling
> process, the volatiles are removed and you are left only with pure
> carbon as the combustible matter. Therefore, charcoal is better than raw
> biomass as domestic fuel. If you want to use biomass as an industrial
> fuel, as in brick making or lime burning, you can use raw biomass, but
> use a properly designed kiln with a sufficiently tall chimney. Secondly,
> raw biomass such as sugarcane leaves or husk of coconut is extremely
> springy. Compressing them into briquettes requires enormous inputs of
> energy and very heavy machinery. Many persons installed such machines in
> India and then went bankrupt, because the high operating costs made the
> product economically non-viable. The potential customers of the biomass
> briquettes were mainly the industrial users, who normally buy wood. If
> the briquette price is higher than fuelwood, they would not buy them,
> because such briquettes are equivalent to wood in their burning
> characteristics, calorific value and smokeyness. The domestic users
> don't pay anything for wood, as they procure it for themselves from the
> countryside. However, those users, who want a cleanly burning fuel,
> would opt for charcoal. Since charred light biomass crumbles very
> easily, you can briquette it even by using a hand-operated machine. We
> are able to sell our char briquettes at the same price as wood charcoal,
> and we mention the eco-friendliness of our char briquettes in the
> advertisements, emphasising the fact that no trees are cut in our process.
> A.D.Karve
>
> >
> >>>From 29 October 2003
> >
> >Dear Listers,
> >
> >Can someone explain the pros and cons of converting biomass to char and then
> >briquetting verses the conversion of biomass to briquettes?
> >
> >We are still looking at options for reclaiming coconut husks, sugar cane and
> >other waste materials from the municipal solid waste stream and creating
> >better income generating opportunities for waste pickers here in Phnom Penh.
> >We are already promoting composting and recycling, but coconut and cane
> >waste exceed our capacity. Interested to hear from anyone with experience
> >with this type of project.
> >
> >Robert Deutsch
> >Advisor, Community Sanitation and Recycling Organization
> >Phnom Penh, Cambodia
> >
> >www.online.com.kh/users/csaro
> >

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Thu Nov 6 23:09:42 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Peter Scott: Stoves from Lesotho and Latin Links from Rogerio
Message-ID: <THU.6.NOV.2003.200942.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

All,

See the new Houshold Stove and the Brean Oven Peter Scott is making with GTZ in Lesotho at:

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Scott/lesotho/gtzlesotho.html

and

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/

We've added some links to stove articles in Brazil courtesy of Rogerio Miranda:

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/estufas/

Keep sending photos and articles.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Still
Subject: Fw: stoves from Lesotho

Dear Tom,

Don't want to flood the site but if you want here are some photos of the Rocket bread oven and single pot stove Peter Scott is making with GTZ.

Best,

Dean
Here are some pics from Lesotho. I really dig the new household stove (check out the cool built in cone skirt for round bottom pots and the cut out top plate to fit the threee legged pots and the stand which supports an extended shelf. The cost for the household stove will be about 10US (retail about double i suppose) but the stove we are going to build in Durban is going to only cost about 4 Us and (retail about double. Love to all

Peter

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Wed Nov 12 14:07:18 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Fw: A.D. Karve on a new biogas stove approach
Message-ID: <WED.12.NOV.2003.120718.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers:

The following is very good news from A.D. Karve - but is also my request
that as many "stoves" members as possible try some experiments along the
following lines as well.

A.D. said to me today:

> My letter to the editor "Science" on domestic biogas system and a
> response from Kirk Smith have appeared in Science on Nov.7, 2003.

RWL: As I am a AAAS member and "Science" subscriber, I think it OK for me
to give you this Karveletter - with this citation - Volume 302, Number 5647,
Issue of 7 Nov 2003, pp. 987-988.

" Cooking Without Air Pollution

In his Editorial "In praise of petroleum" (6 Dec. 2002, p. 1847), K. R.
Smith advocates the use of liquified petroleum gas (LPG), which is an
"air-pollution-free" fossil fuel. He suggests that use of LPG by an
additional 2 billion people in the developing world would add less than 2%
to global greenhouse gas emissions.
Biogas is a renewable and carbon dioxide-neutral alternative to LPG. It,
too, produces a blue flame and offers easy control of the flame intensity.
It is cheaper than LPG, because it is produced locally from local raw
material. Present domestic biogas technology, based on cattle dung, has by
and large proved to be impractical for rural households. However, I have
developed and successfully tested a domestic biogas fermenter that is much
more user-friendly than the one being currently propagated. Instead of using
cattle dung, the new fermenter uses material containing starch or sugar. One
kilogram of sugar or starch can produce about 400 liters of methane, which
is enough for cooking a day's meals for a family of five to six. More
feedstock can be added at any time of the day, if more cooking gas is
needed. The reaction time for converting starchy or sugary biomass into
methane is a couple of hours. The new system has a total internal volume of
about 400 liters. Its small size allows the system to easily be accommodated
inside the kitchen. It generates from 1 to 5 liters of effluent daily, which
contains all the minerals in the original feedstock. Thus, the effluent can
be used as manure. The prototype fermenter, in continuous operation for a
year, has been successfully tested with various feedstocks such as waste
flour collected from the floor of a flour mill, sugarcane juice, macerated
sugarcane, leftover food, flour of nonedible seeds, and powdered oilcake of
nonedible oilseeds. This technology does not rely on products meant for
consumption by humans or animals.

The fermenter costs about U.S. $30, which is less than the cost of a
domestic LPG system. The starchy or sugary feedstock is mostly free of cost
for the rural users, but even if purchased, it would still be much cheaper
than LPG.

A. D. Karve
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune 411 041,
India.

Response:

Karve describes a novel renewable energy technology that shows promise
to supply households with clean fuel on a wide scale. As with LPG, biogas
burns cleanly and efficiently in simple devices. More traditional
household-scale biogas production technologies have had a long history in
rural energy development in developing countries, but have been found to be
limited to particular areas by climate, capital cost, process stability, and
resource requirements. Nevertheless (as shown, for example, in China and,
more recently, in Nepal), directed carefully to the appropriate populations,
they can bring benefits to millions of households. The smaller high-rate
system developed by Karve's group will need to show that it does not suffer
from some of the same problems, particularly process instability and
associated high maintenance and insufficient widespread availability of
household supplies of appropriate resources that have no higher value use.
If it can, millions more households could benefit. Based on his description,
development of this device deserves government and donor support to initiate
field trials.

Kirk R. Smith
Department of Environmental Health Sciences,
University of California, Berkeley,
140 Warren Hall,
Berkeley, CA 94720,
USA.

(end the copy from "Science")

RWL again: At this site
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5647/987
it may be possible for anyone to add in their comments to this very
helpful exchange between A.D. and Kirk. Kirk is obviously correct in
pointing out the need for more experimentation - and that is the reason for
my sending this on and asking others to try this system out. I hope A.D.
will give us all some more detailed guidance on how to perform these tests -
which especially need to focus on long term daily performance results.

As a partial answer to Kirk, I conclude with some initial answers
provided by A.D. in his e-mail today to me:

> <snip>....., several persons (at least 10) as well as
> restaurants (at least 3), have started to use this system in the city of
> Pune. A student of Priya's estimated the carbon dioxide content in the
> gas generated by the starch based biogas plant and came to the
> astonishing conclusion that the gas contained hardly 4% carbon dioxide.
> I also got an independent confirmation of these results from a research
> Institute in Pune, who had tried out, some years ago, oilcake of a
> non-edible oilseed called Madhuka indica. They too reported a very high
> production rate of biogas having less than 5% carbon dioxide. This
> result was published by them at that time, but they also said in the
> publication that after a few days, the bacteria died due to
> acidification of the medium. Nothing of this sort has happened with any
> of the biogas plants that are currently working on starch and leftover
> food. We could not lay our hands on any oilcake of Madhuka indica but
> tested our system with seed homogenate of a non-edible oilseed called
> Pongamia pinnata, continuously for a month, without any mishap. The same
> student of Priya's has been operating her experimental biogas plant for
> the last month by using homogenised whole castor beans. She reports that
> the gas gives a yellowish flame, but otherwise the system is not showing
> any signs of attrition.
> Yours Nandu

RWL: Again - strong congratulations to A.D for both getting this far
and for getting it recognized in "Science".
As a reminder, A.D. was the winner of the prestigious Ashden award for
2002 for a different stove development and one of the four winners of this
year's Shell Foundation stove dissemination grants. This biogas work is new
and not yet reported to "Stoves".
I look forward to more from A.D. and to others who hopefully can
replicate this with different geometries and feedstocks. The challenge of
doing this for about $30 per family is a serious one - but one that could be
hugely important for the village stove health issues that Kirk has so ably
reported.
Stover comments?

Ron

From solar1 at ZUPER.NET Wed Nov 12 15:33:37 2003
From: solar1 at ZUPER.NET (Sobre la Roca: Energ=?ISO-8859-1?B?7Q==?=a Solar para el
Desarrollo)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Fw: A.D. Karve on a new biogas stove approach
In-Reply-To: <007401c3a950$32087a00$45600443@net>
Message-ID: <WED.12.NOV.2003.163337.0400.SOLAR1@ZUPER.NET>

in a previous message, Ron Larson on 11/12/03 15:07 wrote:

> Stovers:
>
> The following is very good news from A.D. Karve - but is also my request
> that as many "stoves" members as possible try some experiments along the
> following lines as well.

> Stover comments?
>
> Ron
Ron, et al
WOW
Great possibilities! How is it possible to produce a system like this? I
would be interested in testing in 4 micro climates here in Bolivia if we
could reproduce the system. Arid high altitude, valleys, semi tropical and
tropical.

It could be possible to find seed plants that could be locally planted as
ground cover to reduce erosion and harvested in communities for fuel.

Please inform me or link me to Dr. Karve to find out more.
Muchas gracias

- - - -
Small desire produces small results just as small fires produce little heat.

David Whitfield
Director
CEDESOL
P.O. Box 4723
La Paz Bolivia South America
591-2-241 4882 office 591 715 16356 cellular

solar1@zuper.net

http://www.she-inc.org/article.php?id=23

http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/#David_Whitfield

http://www.solarcooking.org/media/broadcast/whitfield/bio-whitfield.htm

http://www.thehungersite.com

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Wed Nov 12 19:27:09 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: charring vs.not charring
Message-ID: <WED.12.NOV.2003.172709.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Mr. Deutsch:

Dr. Karve is correct in what he says, if you are considering poor combustion
of biomass. It is very difficult to burn charcoal with high emissions.

On the other hand, 60-70% of the energy of the original biomass is lost when
you make charcoal, and in many operations this goes into the air as
pollutants (but not ADKarve's process I believe). Proper combustion with
sufficient air then recovers this energy.

It takes 4-6 kg of air to burn 1 kg of biomass. If you don't supply it
properly you will get a lot of smoke. If you do, biomass is a very clean,
renewable fuel.

Our forced convection stove can be burned in a small room for 1 hour with no
smell of smoke and an efficiency of 34-45%. (See www.woodgasllc.com) The
same principles can be applied to most biomass combustion.

Yours truly, Thomas B. Reed The BIomass Energy
Foundation (www.woodgas.com).
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:56 AM
Subject: [STOVES] charring vs.not charring

> Dear Mr.Deutsch,
> the process of charring removes the volatiles from biomass. The
> volatiles pollute the air, when biomass burns. In the charcoaling
> process, the volatiles are removed and you are left only with pure
> carbon as the combustible matter. Therefore, charcoal is better than raw
> biomass as domestic fuel. If you want to use biomass as an industrial
> fuel, as in brick making or lime burning, you can use raw biomass, but
> use a properly designed kiln with a sufficiently tall chimney. Secondly,
> raw biomass such as sugarcane leaves or husk of coconut is extremely
> springy. Compressing them into briquettes requires enormous inputs of
> energy and very heavy machinery. Many persons installed such machines in
> India and then went bankrupt, because the high operating costs made the
> product economically non-viable. The potential customers of the biomass
> briquettes were mainly the industrial users, who normally buy wood. If
> the briquette price is higher than fuelwood, they would not buy them,
> because such briquettes are equivalent to wood in their burning
> characteristics, calorific value and smokeyness. The domestic users
> don't pay anything for wood, as they procure it for themselves from the
> countryside. However, those users, who want a cleanly burning fuel,
> would opt for charcoal. Since charred light biomass crumbles very
> easily, you can briquette it even by using a hand-operated machine. We
> are able to sell our char briquettes at the same price as wood charcoal,
> and we mention the eco-friendliness of our char briquettes in the
> advertisements, emphasising the fact that no trees are cut in our process.
> A.D.Karve
>
> >
> >>From 29 October 2003
> >
> >Dear Listers,
> >
> >Can someone explain the pros and cons of converting biomass to char and
then
> >briquetting verses the conversion of biomass to briquettes?
> >
> >We are still looking at options for reclaiming coconut husks, sugar cane
and
> >other waste materials from the municipal solid waste stream and creating
> >better income generating opportunities for waste pickers here in Phnom
Penh.
> >We are already promoting composting and recycling, but coconut and cane
> >waste exceed our capacity. Interested to hear from anyone with
experience
> >with this type of project.
> >
> >Robert Deutsch
> >Advisor, Community Sanitation and Recycling Organization
> >Phnom Penh, Cambodia
> >
> >www.online.com.kh/users/csaro
> >

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Wed Nov 12 19:36:43 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: charring vs.not charring
Message-ID: <WED.12.NOV.2003.173643.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Richard, Deutsch and ADK et al:

I saw Richard Stanley's hand made briquetting press at the "Sustainable
Village" fair in Boulder last month. Very impressive.

I believe he has found a simple alternative to the high cost, high pressure
densification of biomass, even though his briquettes are not as heavy. And
they still contain essentially all of the energy of the original fuel. I am
sure there is room for all of these technologies as we begin to use biomass
properly.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF GASIFICATION
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Stanley" <rstanley@legacyfound.org>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] charring vs.not charring

> AD,
>
> I would correct you on one count in your advice to Me Deutsch. While I
fully
> agree with you that the CONVENTIONAL high pressure briquetting is
wasteful and
> highly capital intensive, you leave out the fact that when chopped and
> partially decomposed and then recombined in a water slurry, it is not only
> possible- but far easier and less capital and energy intensive- to
briquette
> biomass in the right combinations (sugar cane and choir fiber
included--here
> lots of grasses might be added to ensure rapid breakdown of the stucture
of said
> raw materials). Admittedly the wet process briquettes are low density (.3
to .4
> sg ) but they are highly efficient. We use only 260- 300 grams (two
briquettes)
> per person per day, in an open three stone fire, or an off-the-shelf
unlined
> /uninsulated /unchimneyed metal stove-- in an village applied cooking
> situation. (The internationally reported average for wood consumption in
the
> same environment is 1.2 kg per person per day)
>
> And you can have your cake and eat it too.
>
> You can burn off the volatiles fairly efficiently, (With the right
combinations
> of pure biomass, we are burning pretty much smoke free, within 5 - 8
minutes of
> start) then in a gassifier stove of the right design, we can opt to;
> 1) choke back primary air flow, inducing more secondary air, to gassifiy
the
> resulting char cake or;
> 2) leave primary air open and continue with the conventional burn which
consumes
> the charcoal (leaving only a white ash) or;
> 3) extract the char cake from the stove into a air tight can and at a
later
> point crush then compact it whole or in combination with other residues,
(using
> the same low pressure wet process) to create higher value charcoal
briquettes.
>
> We will soon have another progress report out on a stove which does just
that.
> Being developed by fellow stover Kobus Venter and myself.
>
> Richard Stanley
>
>
> www.legfacyfound.org
>
> "A.D. Karve" wrote:
>
> > Dear Mr.Deutsch,
> > the process of charring removes the volatiles from biomass. The
> > volatiles pollute the air, when biomass burns. In the charcoaling
> > process, the volatiles are removed and you are left only with pure
> > carbon as the combustible matter. Therefore, charcoal is better than raw
> > biomass as domestic fuel. If you want to use biomass as an industrial
> > fuel, as in brick making or lime burning, you can use raw biomass, but
> > use a properly designed kiln with a sufficiently tall chimney. Secondly,
> > raw biomass such as sugarcane leaves or husk of coconut is extremely
> > springy. Compressing them into briquettes requires enormous inputs of
> > energy and very heavy machinery. Many persons installed such machines in
> > India and then went bankrupt, because the high operating costs made the
> > product economically non-viable. The potential customers of the biomass
> > briquettes were mainly the industrial users, who normally buy wood. If
> > the briquette price is higher than fuelwood, they would not buy them,
> > because such briquettes are equivalent to wood in their burning
> > characteristics, calorific value and smokeyness. The domestic users
> > don't pay anything for wood, as they procure it for themselves from the
> > countryside. However, those users, who want a cleanly burning fuel,
> > would opt for charcoal. Since charred light biomass crumbles very
> > easily, you can briquette it even by using a hand-operated machine. We
> > are able to sell our char briquettes at the same price as wood charcoal,
> > and we mention the eco-friendliness of our char briquettes in the
> > advertisements, emphasising the fact that no trees are cut in our
process.
> > A.D.Karve
> >
> > >
> > >>>From 29 October 2003
> > >
> > >Dear Listers,
> > >
> > >Can someone explain the pros and cons of converting biomass to char and
then
> > >briquetting verses the conversion of biomass to briquettes?
> > >
> > >We are still looking at options for reclaiming coconut husks, sugar
cane and
> > >other waste materials from the municipal solid waste stream and
creating
> > >better income generating opportunities for waste pickers here in Phnom
Penh.
> > >We are already promoting composting and recycling, but coconut and cane
> > >waste exceed our capacity. Interested to hear from anyone with
experience
> > >with this type of project.
> > >
> > >Robert Deutsch
> > >Advisor, Community Sanitation and Recycling Organization
> > >Phnom Penh, Cambodia
> > >
> > >www.online.com.kh/users/csaro
> > >

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Wed Nov 12 19:46:32 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: To Char or not to Char
Message-ID: <WED.12.NOV.2003.174632.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Ron:

You said...

>I'm not aware of anyone using the pyrolysis gases
> for co-product reasons while producing charcoal. We have had a lot of
talk
> on this list about charcoal producing stoves - let us know if you want to
> hear more on that. Hope all doing something like this will jump in.

How could you say that when you and I have been making and promoting woodgas
stoves that also make 15-25% characoal as a by-product????

We have sold our first 100 woodgas campstoves at www.woodgasllc.com and are
starting production on a larger run.

TOM REED GASIFICATION

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] To Char or not to Char

> Robert (cc stoves):
>
> Today, you said:
>
> > Subject: To Char or not to Char
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Dear Listers,
> >
> > Can someone explain the pros and cons of converting biomass to char and
> then
> > briquetting verses the conversion of biomass to briquettes?
> >
> The pros are often listed as:
>
> Cleaner burning; easier to modify output (by fanning); more efficient
> transport (30 MJ per kG vs 18 MJ for wood). Overall is higher on the
> perceived "Energy Ladder".
>
> The cons are often listed as: often very wasteful when produced in
> field (sometimes listed as bad as 80% wasted energy) - and the waste
> pyrolysis gases are 20 x worse than CO2 in global warming sense. Some
> countries have prohibited its sale - often for reasons of desertification,
> deforestation, etc. The main pollutant during combustion is CO - which
can
> lead to both illness and death (but probably not a worse health problem
than
> combustion of wood - which is a big problem.)
>
> (But all of above can be avoided if pyrolysis gases are used
> productively - and the combustion of those gases can be done cleanly. The
> charcoal production can be done (but usually not) cleanly in the field.
Two
> Stove list members doing this commercially and cleanly now are A.D. Karve
in
> India (using crop residues) and Elsen Karstad in Nairobi (using bagasse.
> Both are producing briquettes - probably with about 40% energy conversion
> efficiency (60% lost). I'm not aware of anyone using the pyrolysis gases
> for co-product reasons while producing charcoal. We have had a lot of
talk
> on this list about charcoal producing stoves - let us know if you want to
> hear more on that. Hope all doing something like this will jump in.
>
> > We are still looking at options for reclaiming coconut husks, sugar cane
> and
> > other waste materials from the municipal solid waste stream and
creating
> > better income generating opportunities for waste pickers here in Phnom
> Penh.
> > We are already promoting composting and recycling, but coconut and cane
> > waste exceed our capacity. Interested to hear from anyone with
> experience
> > with this type of project.
> >
> RWL: Yours sounds like a possibly economic opportunity - either
> with or without waste heat utilization. If you can find people now
burning
> wood locally, they should be able to use both cocomut and cane waste with
> charcoal by-product - but there will be a need for some development I'm
> afraid. Let us know if you want to hear more about the basic rules for
> pyrolysis. One way is top lighting, separate primary (with air control)
and
> secondary air, dry fuel, etc. (Elsen reverses the air flow in a down
draft
> approach.) Another way is with retorts and total air exclusion. Both
are
> batch processes - which is a major drawback usually - but might be OK with
> low labor costs like yours.
>
> Congratulations on what you are doing.
>
> Ron
>
> > Robert Deutsch
> > Advisor, Community Sanitation and Recycling Organization
> > Phnom Penh, Cambodia
> >
> > www.online.com.kh/users/csaro
> >

From mantal at HAWAII.EDU Wed Nov 12 19:52:49 2003
From: mantal at HAWAII.EDU (Michael J. Antal, Jr.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: charring vs.not charring
In-Reply-To: <002601c3a97c$e076d970$35d80818@cwcn7uspc42i87>
Message-ID: <WED.12.NOV.2003.145249.1000.MANTAL@HAWAII.EDU>

Dear Tom and list members: although I greatly admire Tom's ability to
accurately reflect on and represent an enormous body of interdisciplinary
knowledge concerning biomass utilization, I must correct his value for the
energy efficiency of charcoal production (below). Our work with Flash
Carbonization (published recently in Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.) shows an energy
conversion efficiency of 52 to 72% charcoal from biomass. Our commercial
scale Flash Carbonization reactor is now being setup on campus, and we
expect to confirm our bench scale measurements in the next few months. The
technologies Tom represents below are now antiquated. Regards, Michael.

Michael J. Antal, Jr.
Coral Industries Distinguished Professor of Renewable Energy Resources
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST)
1680 East-West Rd., POST 109
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, HI 96822

Phone: 808/956-7267
Fax: 808/956-2336
http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
Behalf Of TBReed
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:27 PM
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [STOVES] charring vs.not charring

Dear Mr. Deutsch:

Dr. Karve is correct in what he says, if you are considering poor combustion
of biomass. It is very difficult to burn charcoal with high emissions.

On the other hand, 60-70% of the energy of the original biomass is lost when
you make charcoal, and in many operations this goes into the air as
pollutants (but not ADKarve's process I believe). Proper combustion with
sufficient air then recovers this energy.

It takes 4-6 kg of air to burn 1 kg of biomass. If you don't supply it
properly you will get a lot of smoke. If you do, biomass is a very clean,
renewable fuel.

Our forced convection stove can be burned in a small room for 1 hour with no
smell of smoke and an efficiency of 34-45%. (See www.woodgasllc.com) The
same principles can be applied to most biomass combustion.

Yours truly, Thomas B. Reed The BIomass Energy
Foundation (www.woodgas.com).
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:56 AM
Subject: [STOVES] charring vs.not charring

> Dear Mr.Deutsch,
> the process of charring removes the volatiles from biomass. The
> volatiles pollute the air, when biomass burns. In the charcoaling
> process, the volatiles are removed and you are left only with pure
> carbon as the combustible matter. Therefore, charcoal is better than raw
> biomass as domestic fuel. If you want to use biomass as an industrial
> fuel, as in brick making or lime burning, you can use raw biomass, but
> use a properly designed kiln with a sufficiently tall chimney. Secondly,
> raw biomass such as sugarcane leaves or husk of coconut is extremely
> springy. Compressing them into briquettes requires enormous inputs of
> energy and very heavy machinery. Many persons installed such machines in
> India and then went bankrupt, because the high operating costs made the
> product economically non-viable. The potential customers of the biomass
> briquettes were mainly the industrial users, who normally buy wood. If
> the briquette price is higher than fuelwood, they would not buy them,
> because such briquettes are equivalent to wood in their burning
> characteristics, calorific value and smokeyness. The domestic users
> don't pay anything for wood, as they procure it for themselves from the
> countryside. However, those users, who want a cleanly burning fuel,
> would opt for charcoal. Since charred light biomass crumbles very
> easily, you can briquette it even by using a hand-operated machine. We
> are able to sell our char briquettes at the same price as wood charcoal,
> and we mention the eco-friendliness of our char briquettes in the
> advertisements, emphasising the fact that no trees are cut in our process.
> A.D.Karve
>
> >
> >>From 29 October 2003
> >
> >Dear Listers,
> >
> >Can someone explain the pros and cons of converting biomass to char and
then
> >briquetting verses the conversion of biomass to briquettes?
> >
> >We are still looking at options for reclaiming coconut husks, sugar cane
and
> >other waste materials from the municipal solid waste stream and creating
> >better income generating opportunities for waste pickers here in Phnom
Penh.
> >We are already promoting composting and recycling, but coconut and cane
> >waste exceed our capacity. Interested to hear from anyone with
experience
> >with this type of project.
> >
> >Robert Deutsch
> >Advisor, Community Sanitation and Recycling Organization
> >Phnom Penh, Cambodia
> >
> >www.online.com.kh/users/csaro
> >

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Wed Nov 12 23:36:16 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: To Char or not to Char
Message-ID: <WED.12.NOV.2003.213616.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Tom (cc Stoves)

You asked today (where "that" referred to part of my reply of October 28 to
Robert Deutsch's query of the same date):

> How could you say that when you and I have been making and promoting
woodgas
> stoves that also make 15-25% characoal as a by-product????

I think if you reread his question and my full answer emphasizing the
briquetting work of A.D. Karve and Elsen Karstad (where I did also refer to
charcoal-making stoves) you will see that we were both only talking about
the making of charcoal before briquetting. I didn't feel he was asking
about charcoal making in general and I certainly know little about
briquetting. I was mainly trying to emphasize the big potential economic
value of utilizing the "waste" heat - as that was my motivation in all my
first work on the subject. The making of charcoal amd finding a use for
those valuable pyrolysis gases still seems to remain a basically unexplored
area of research

I am still amazed that we have only turned up one reference on the
waste heat use subject (from Andrew Heggie) where the substantial "waste"
energy was put to good use. (and we still don't know exactly what was
said). It would not surprise me to find that some manufacturer in India has
a medium scale or large scale pyrolysis scheme that will give a large
continuous clean output of two types: thermal and charcoal. Any one else
have a product to mention?

Mike Antal has reminded us today that his charcoaling system is highly
efficient and clean - I have gathered from reading his approach that it is
unlikely to have an ability to use those pyrolysis gases as well - but hope
that Mike will clarify that point. I did not mention it on the 28th because
it is not yet commercial - but hope that Mike can find a way to capture the
available heat for more than drying of the input resource.

I hope Bob Deutch will report back in on whether he is more or less
happy with the responses obtained and what more we can do to help. (There
was some confusion on whether he was getting all the "stoves" responses.)

Ron

From pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU Thu Nov 13 05:45:49 2003
From: pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU (Peter Verhaart)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Fw: A.D. Karve on a new biogas stove approach
In-Reply-To: <007401c3a950$32087a00$45600443@net>
Message-ID: <THU.13.NOV.2003.204549.1000.PVERHAART@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

At 12:07 12/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Stovers:
>
> The following is very good news from A.D. Karve - but is also my request
>that as many "stoves" members as possible try some experiments along the
>following lines as well.

It seemed a lot of gas at first glance, but a rough calculation shows that
around half the carbon in the starch or sugar is converted to methane if 1
kg yields 400 l of gas.
That sure is an exciting development.

Peter Verhaart

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Thu Nov 13 07:04:23 2003
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Fw: A.D. Karve on a new biogas stove approach
Message-ID: <THU.13.NOV.2003.150423.0300.>

Dear Dr KArve,

I would like to offer a sincere appreciation of your work on the new
methane generator technology AD. and I hope that at
some point it can find a home here in biomass-rich Uganda.

To that end, I am cc'ing this email to
two colleagues here in Uganda, Dr. Charles Kwesiga, Director of the Uganda
Industrial research and Technology Institute and \ Mr Olaf Etrz, a
senior technical adviser to UIRI.
Thanks again for sharing it.

Richard Stanley
Legacy Foundation

Ron Larson (one of the moderators of our "stoves" newsgroup) wrote:

> Stovers:
>
> The following is very good news from A.D. Karve - but is also my request
> that as many "stoves" members as possible try some experiments along the
> following lines as well.
>
> A.D. said to me today:
>
> > My letter to the editor "Science" on domestic biogas system and a
> > response from Kirk Smith have appeared in Science on Nov.7, 2003.
>
> RWL: As I am a AAAS member and "Science" subscriber, I think it OK for me
> to give you this Karveletter - with this citation - Volume 302, Number 5647,
> Issue of 7 Nov 2003, pp. 987-988.
>
> " Cooking Without Air Pollution
>
> In his Editorial "In praise of petroleum" (6 Dec. 2002, p. 1847), K. R.
> Smith advocates the use of liquified petroleum gas (LPG), which is an
> "air-pollution-free" fossil fuel. He suggests that use of LPG by an
> additional 2 billion people in the developing world would add less than 2%
> to global greenhouse gas emissions.
> Biogas is a renewable and carbon dioxide-neutral alternative to LPG. It,
> too, produces a blue flame and offers easy control of the flame intensity.
> It is cheaper than LPG, because it is produced locally from local raw
> material. Present domestic biogas technology, based on cattle dung, has by
> and large proved to be impractical for rural households. However, I have
> developed and successfully tested a domestic biogas fermenter that is much
> more user-friendly than the one being currently propagated. Instead of using
> cattle dung, the new fermenter uses material containing starch or sugar. One
> kilogram of sugar or starch can produce about 400 liters of methane, which
> is enough for cooking a day's meals for a family of five to six. More
> feedstock can be added at any time of the day, if more cooking gas is
> needed. The reaction time for converting starchy or sugary biomass into
> methane is a couple of hours. The new system has a total internal volume of
> about 400 liters. Its small size allows the system to easily be accommodated
> inside the kitchen. It generates from 1 to 5 liters of effluent daily, which
> contains all the minerals in the original feedstock. Thus, the effluent can
> be used as manure. The prototype fermenter, in continuous operation for a
> year, has been successfully tested with various feedstocks such as waste
> flour collected from the floor of a flour mill, sugarcane juice, macerated
> sugarcane, leftover food, flour of nonedible seeds, and powdered oilcake of
> nonedible oilseeds. This technology does not rely on products meant for
> consumption by humans or animals.
>
> The fermenter costs about U.S. $30, which is less than the cost of a
> domestic LPG system. The starchy or sugary feedstock is mostly free of cost
> for the rural users, but even if purchased, it would still be much cheaper
> than LPG.
>
> A. D. Karve
> Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
> Pune 411 041,
> India.
>
> Response:
>
> Karve describes a novel renewable energy technology that shows promise
> to supply households with clean fuel on a wide scale. As with LPG, biogas
> burns cleanly and efficiently in simple devices. More traditional
> household-scale biogas production technologies have had a long history in
> rural energy development in developing countries, but have been found to be
> limited to particular areas by climate, capital cost, process stability, and
> resource requirements. Nevertheless (as shown, for example, in China and,
> more recently, in Nepal), directed carefully to the appropriate populations,
> they can bring benefits to millions of households. The smaller high-rate
> system developed by Karve's group will need to show that it does not suffer
> from some of the same problems, particularly process instability and
> associated high maintenance and insufficient widespread availability of
> household supplies of appropriate resources that have no higher value use.
> If it can, millions more households could benefit. Based on his description,
> development of this device deserves government and donor support to initiate
> field trials.
>
> Kirk R. Smith
> Department of Environmental Health Sciences,
> University of California, Berkeley,
> 140 Warren Hall,
> Berkeley, CA 94720,
> USA.
>
> (end the copy from "Science")
>
> RWL again: At this site
> (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5647/987
> it may be possible for anyone to add in their comments to this very
> helpful exchange between A.D. and Kirk. Kirk is obviously correct in
> pointing out the need for more experimentation - and that is the reason for
> my sending this on and asking others to try this system out. I hope A.D.
> will give us all some more detailed guidance on how to perform these tests -
> which especially need to focus on long term daily performance results.
>
> As a partial answer to Kirk, I conclude with some initial answers
> provided by A.D. in his e-mail today to me:
>
> > <snip>....., several persons (at least 10) as well as
> > restaurants (at least 3), have started to use this system in the city of
> > Pune. A student of Priya's estimated the carbon dioxide content in the
> > gas generated by the starch based biogas plant and came to the
> > astonishing conclusion that the gas contained hardly 4% carbon dioxide.
> > I also got an independent confirmation of these results from a research
> > Institute in Pune, who had tried out, some years ago, oilcake of a
> > non-edible oilseed called Madhuka indica. They too reported a very high
> > production rate of biogas having less than 5% carbon dioxide. This
> > result was published by them at that time, but they also said in the
> > publication that after a few days, the bacteria died due to
> > acidification of the medium. Nothing of this sort has happened with any
> > of the biogas plants that are currently working on starch and leftover
> > food. We could not lay our hands on any oilcake of Madhuka indica but
> > tested our system with seed homogenate of a non-edible oilseed called
> > Pongamia pinnata, continuously for a month, without any mishap. The same
> > student of Priya's has been operating her experimental biogas plant for
> > the last month by using homogenised whole castor beans. She reports that
> > the gas gives a yellowish flame, but otherwise the system is not showing
> > any signs of attrition.
> > Yours Nandu
>
> RWL: Again - strong congratulations to A.D for both getting this far
> and for getting it recognized in "Science".
> As a reminder, A.D. was the winner of the prestigious Ashden award for
> 2002 for a different stove development and one of the four winners of this
> year's Shell Foundation stove dissemination grants. This biogas work is new
> and not yet reported to "Stoves".
> I look forward to more from A.D. and to others who hopefully can
> replicate this with different geometries and feedstocks. The challenge of
> doing this for about $30 per family is a serious one - but one that could be
> hugely important for the village stove health issues that Kirk has so ably
> reported.
> Stover comments?
>
> Ron

From rdboyt at YAHOO.COM Fri Nov 14 08:41:57 2003
From: rdboyt at YAHOO.COM (Richard Boyt)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Ceramics for Stoves, Part 6A: Testing for Plasticity and Shrinkage
Message-ID: <FRI.14.NOV.2003.054157.0800.RDBOYT@YAHOO.COM>

Stovers:

Clay- easy to find and process, but confusingly variable in properties necessary for making stoves. Among these are plasticity which allows it to be shaped, and shrinkage, which determines the finished size.

In the hands of an experienced potter, plasticity is immediately sensed. For the rest of us, the general rule is: if it cracks when shaping, it is too dry, and if it sticks to your hands, it is too wet. The consistency of concrete is measured with a slump test. For clay, it may be measured with a "bump" test. Form 250 grams of clay into a round ball. Drop it from 50 cm onto a hard, flat surface. Measure and record the diameter of the impression made on the ball of clay.

To test for linear shrinkage, roll out and weight three cylinders of the moist clay, each about 15 cm long, and 1.5 cm diameter. Accurately impress on the surface of each cylinder, a row of narrow marks, 1 cm apart. Dry the cylinders for several days, periodically measuring the marks for shrinkage and weighing for weight loss. Construct a graph showing these relationships. It should describe a gentle curve. When the clay is dry, compute the percentage of dry clay and of water that were in the original damp plastic clay.

Slowly heat one of the cylinders to red heat. A charcoal fire can work well, but if you raise the heat too quickly, the cylinder may shatter from the internal steam pressure. Cool, and again measure the distance between marks and compute the firing shrinkage. It should be noted that firing shrinkage increases somewhat as the firing temperature is increased.

You now know that a particular clay, when mixed with a given amount of water, will demonstrate a predictable plasticity and linear shrinkage. This permits comparisons of different clays.

A clay I dig locally, when made plastic with 26% water by weight, has a "bump diameter" of 4.4 cm, a drying shrinkage of 10%, followed by a firing shrinkage of 1%.

Hope this proves useful to someone.

Dick Boyt

 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Fri Nov 14 12:56:57 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: RE A.D. Karve on a new biogas stove approach - BIG scale in
Alberta
Message-ID: <FRI.14.NOV.2003.195657.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Alberta ranchers explore 'manure power'

Last Updated Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:57:16
VEGREVILLE, ALTA. - Next summer, cattle in Alberta could become another
source of fuel for the province.
The Kotelko family near Vegreville has raised cattle for 20 years. Their
feedlot is home to 36,000 head, producing 36 million kilograms of manure
every year.

The Ketelkos are pioneering the use of manure for a new technology. The plan
is to take the waste and turn it into three megawatts of electricity -
enough to power three towns of more than 7,000 people. The technology
involves two 15-metre-high tanks with rubber domes. Inside the tanks, water
and heat are added to manure. Methane comes out to fire up a generator to
produce power.

"I guess it'll be another form of revenue for our feedlot," said Bern
Kotelko of Highland Renewables. He said they're looking forward to selling
electricity along with beef, especially given the effects of Canada's lone
case of BSE. The project will cost $7.9 million in provincial and federal
funding, but the Kotelkos and scientists believe it's worth it. The
technology means less odour, less greenhouse gas emissions, and more
valuable byproducts. Xiaomei Li of the Alberta Research Council says the
integrated approach turns manure into an energy resource, as well as
valuable bio-based fertilizer with enriched nutrients, organic matter and
water. The family hopes the system will be generating power by next summer.
If it works, they hope to expand to other Alberta feedlots.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/12/manure031112

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ryan Chladny, MSc, EIT
Combustion & Environment Group
4-9 Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
Edmonton AB
T6G2G8
Ph: (780) 492-7210
Fx: (780) 492-2200
http://www.ualberta.ca/~rchladny/

From adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN Sat Nov 15 07:23:45 2003
From: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN (A.D. Karve)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: biogas
Message-ID: <SAT.15.NOV.2003.175345.0530.ADKARVE@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

The biogas plant is a standard, moving dome type of a biogas plant.
It can be fabricated, using two barrels, both of about 200 liter
capacity. Such barrels are available in different sizes, being used as
domestic water tanks. One of the barrels should have a slightly smaller
diameter than the other, so that it can telescope into the broader
barrel. One end of both the barrels is cut open. The broader barrel is
kept on the ground with the open end pointing upwards. This barrels
serves to hold the fermenting liquid.The narrower barrel is slid into
the steel barrel with its open end pointing downwards. It serves as the
gas holder. If two such barrels are not available, one can construct the
broader container out of bricks and cement morter. The fermenter barrel
is provided with an L shaped inlet pipe, that is 5 cm wide. The
horizontal arm of the L should be about 40 cm long and the vertical arm
should be 100 cm long. It requires some plumbing skill to fit the inlet
pipe. For fitting the inlet pipe, a hole of adequate diameter is cut
into the vertical side of the barrel, as near the base as possible. The
outer barrel is also provided with an outlet pipe near its top end,
through which the effluent slurry can flow out. The inner barrel, that
serves as the gas holder, is provided with a gas tap, fitted at the
topmost part of the barrel. The gas is supplied to the burner through
this tap. The gas holder barrel is weighed down by means of a sack
filled with sand or any other material, weighing about 20 kg. In this
way, the gas is provided to the burner under a certain constant
pressure. In India, one can buy a special domestic biogas burner for
this gas, but if that is not available, one can use an LPG burner, with
the pin-hole nipple removed.
To start the system, an aqueous slurry made of about 200 litres of
water, about 10 kg cattle dung and about 200 grams of flour of any
starchy material, is poured into the system through the inlet pipe. The
gas cock of the gas holder barrel is kept open, while filling the
slurry. After filling the slurry, the gas tap is closed. The
fermentation process produces gas which will accumulate in the gas
holder and lift it up. Test this gas for its combustibility. It may
happen, that the gas produced during the first few days does not burn.
Just let it exhaust by opening the gas tap so that the gas holder barrel
sinks back into the outer barrel. But then do not forget to close the
gas tap. Add daily about 200 g of flour, after mixing it with about a
litre of water, to the fermenter, through the inlet pipe. Use a plunger
to push the flour slurry into the barrel. Otherwise it would remain in
the inlet pipe and ferment inside the pipe. Once the system starts to
produce combustible gas, increase the amount of flour to daily 500
grams. Flour always contains a small quantity of protein, which gives
rise to a small amount of H2S and NH3, which produce foul odour.
Therefore the gas plant cannot be kept inside an unventilated kitchen.
One should keep it outside the house, just beneath the kitchen window,
and take the gas into the kitchen by means of a rubber pipe.
There was a comment about the amount of methane produced by the system.
It is right that one should get about 400 litres of methane from 1 kg
starch or sugar, but the astonishing thing was that the gas that one
obtained from this system consisted of almost pure methane. What happens
to the carbondioxide? I assume that it is dissolved in water and just
diffuses out of the system. Remember the school chemistry experiment
in which a candle is burnt inside a bell jar? In this experiment, the
water surrounding the bell jar rises up inside the bell jar because the
carbon dioxide produced by the burning candle dissolves in water.
A.D.Karve

Richard Stanley wrote:

>Dear Dr KArve,
>
>I would like to offer a sincere appreciation of your work on the new
>methane generator technology AD. and I hope that at
>some point it can find a home here in biomass-rich Uganda.
>
>To that end, I am cc'ing this email to
>two colleagues here in Uganda, Dr. Charles Kwesiga, Director of the Uganda
>Industrial research and Technology Institute and \ Mr Olaf Etrz, a
>senior technical adviser to UIRI.
>Thanks again for sharing it.
>
>Richard Stanley
>Legacy Foundation
>
>
>>
>

From rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG Sat Nov 15 08:33:46 2003
From: rstanley at LEGACYFOUND.ORG (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: biogas
Message-ID: <SAT.15.NOV.2003.163346.0300.>

AD,
After about five years in the biogas tech extension arena back in the
70's (somehow that could be worded more aromatically) , we had evolved
a similar design for a very similar expanding drum idea simplified as
your design suggests. We had a different configuration for the inlet
(feed stock) pipe and I wanted to share that back with you if it can be
helpful to your design. The inlet pipe we used was a striaght tube which
was angled into the main base drum / lined well / at roughly 20 degrees
off the vertical. It was also extended about half a meter ABOVE the rim
of the base drum/lined well. The resulting reduction in frictional
resistance to flow combined with the 'head' difference (between feed
tube inlet and the rim of the base tank, created a rather natural,
immedaite and smooth flow into the tank. There was little waste in
exterior fermentation and no need for a plunger.

As for daily use, I would only add two precautions which we applied to
biogas use. (Please also advise as to whether these would as well apply
to your design):
1) The first generation of gas will be mixed with air and should be bled
off with no attempt at igniting it. at a certain proportion this
combination is quite explosive . Afterwards the gas is used as
suggested.
2) For safety in the conventional biogas gas generator at least, we used
a water trap. This was nothing much more than an upright 2 to 4 liter,
air tight, water filled container installed in the gas line/tube. The
tube from the tank entered through the top (lid) of said container and
bubbled out the gas --from beneath the surface. The outlet tube also
entering the container through the same top, but was set above the
water surface, such that it could conduct the bubbled gas off to the
house cooking and lighting appliance). If you were clever you would set
this jar at a low point int eh line such that it would collect excess
moisture generated from the gas. The sulphur smell could have easily
been removed by filtering the gas through iron filings but we found that
the smell was a great warning device to anyone who had left the gas on.

In all however, the idea of so little waste material generating so much
gas, has me thinking about installing one at home allover again. The old
rule of thumb of one cow per person per day requiring a 2.5 mtr dia X 2
mtr tall tank over a slightly larger sized well for one family on a
continuous basis, was a bit of a stinky and sloppy management
proposition but what you are suggesting is very much more interesting
indeed.

Richard Stanley

 

"A.D. Karve" wrote:

> The biogas plant is a standard, moving dome type of a biogas plant.
> It can be fabricated, using two barrels, both of about 200 liter
> capacity. Such barrels are available in different sizes, being used as
> domestic water tanks. One of the barrels should have a slightly
> smaller diameter than the other, so that it can telescope into the
> broader barrel. One end of both the barrels is cut open. The broader
> barrel is kept on the ground with the open end pointing upwards. This
> barrels serves to hold the fermenting liquid.The narrower barrel is
> slid into the steel barrel with its open end pointing downwards. It
> serves as the gas holder. If two such barrels are not available, one
> can construct the broader container out of bricks and cement morter.
> The fermenter barrel is provided with an L shaped inlet pipe, that is
> 5 cm wide. The horizontal arm of the L should be about 40 cm long and
> the vertical arm should be 100 cm long. It requires some plumbing
> skill to fit the inlet pipe. For fitting the inlet pipe, a hole of
> adequate diameter is cut into the vertical side of the barrel, as near
> the base as possible. The outer barrel is also provided with an
> outlet pipe near its top end, through which the effluent slurry can
> flow out. The inner barrel, that serves as the gas holder, is provided
> with a gas tap, fitted at the topmost part of the barrel. The gas is
> supplied to the burner through this tap. The gas holder barrel is
> weighed down by means of a sack filled with sand or any other
> material, weighing about 20 kg. In this way, the gas is provided to
> the burner under a certain constant pressure. In India, one can buy a
> special domestic biogas burner for this gas, but if that is not
> available, one can use an LPG burner, with the pin-hole nipple
> removed.
> To start the system, an aqueous slurry made of about 200 litres of
> water, about 10 kg cattle dung and about 200 grams of flour of any
> starchy material, is poured into the system through the inlet pipe.
> The gas cock of the gas holder barrel is kept open, while filling the
> slurry. After filling the slurry, the gas tap is closed. The
> fermentation process produces gas which will accumulate in the gas
> holder and lift it up. Test this gas for its combustibility. It may
> happen, that the gas produced during the first few days does not burn.
> Just let it exhaust by opening the gas tap so that the gas holder
> barrel sinks back into the outer barrel. But then do not forget to
> close the gas tap. Add daily about 200 g of flour, after mixing it
> with about a litre of water, to the fermenter, through the inlet pipe.
> Use a plunger to push the flour slurry into the barrel. Otherwise it
> would remain in the inlet pipe and ferment inside the pipe. Once the
> system starts to produce combustible gas, increase the amount of flour
> to daily 500 grams. Flour always contains a small quantity of
> protein, which gives rise to a small amount of H2S and NH3, which
> produce foul odour. Therefore the gas plant cannot be kept inside an
> unventilated kitchen. One should keep it outside the house, just
> beneath the kitchen window, and take the gas into the kitchen by means
> of a rubber pipe.
> There was a comment about the amount of methane produced by the
> system. It is right that one should get about 400 litres of methane
> from 1 kg starch or sugar, but the astonishing thing was that the gas
> that one obtained from this system consisted of almost pure methane.
> What happens to the carbondioxide? I assume that it is dissolved in
> water and just diffuses out of the system. Remember the school
> chemistry experiment in which a candle is burnt inside a bell jar? In
> this experiment, the water surrounding the bell jar rises up inside
> the bell jar because the carbon dioxide produced by the burning candle
> dissolves in water.
> A.D.Karve
>
> Richard Stanley wrote:
>
>> Dear Dr KArve,
>>
>> I would like to offer a sincere appreciation of your work on the new
>> methane generator technology AD. and I hope that at
>> some point it can find a home here in biomass-rich Uganda.
>>
>> To that end, I am cc'ing this email to
>> two colleagues here in Uganda, Dr. Charles Kwesiga, Director of the
>> Uganda
>> Industrial research and Technology Institute and \ Mr Olaf Etrz, a
>> senior technical adviser to UIRI.
>> Thanks again for sharing it.
>>
>> Richard Stanley
>> Legacy Foundation
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sun Nov 16 08:11:11 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: biogas
Message-ID: <SUN.16.NOV.2003.061111.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

A.D. (cc stoves):

Thanks for your message with the details below on your approach - which I hope others will now try to "beat" (in terms of price, speed, efficiency, cleanliness, etc.)

I have only followed the biogas technology from afar, but had concluded some time ago that the Indian floating top approach had not taken off as well as the fixed top (spherical, in-ground) approach in China for reasons of fabrication cost.

The Nepalese have also successfully used a fixed top, but with a longer trough approach. I have seen reference to plastic tubes that inflate also.

In both of these, the accumulating methane forces excess fluid out of the container (with an output port that is lower than the input).

Have you tried either of these Chinese or Nepalese approaches as well? (The argument being one of economics.) One may not be able to achieve constant pressure?

Again congratulations for both the idea of using waste starches and sugars as a way of cutting capital sizes and costs - and of getting it published in Science.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: A.D. Karve
To: rstanley@LEGACYFOUND.ORG ; STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG ; Ron Larson
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 5:23 AM
Subject: biogas

The biogas plant is a standard, moving dome type of a biogas plant. It can be fabricated, using two barrels, both of about 200 liter capacity. Such barrels are available in different sizes, being used as domestic water tanks. One of the barrels should have a slightly smaller diameter than the other, so that it can telescope into the broader barrel. One end of both the barrels is cut open. The broader barrel is kept on the ground with the open end pointing upwards. This barrels serves to hold the fermenting liquid.The narrower barrel is slid into the steel barrel with its open end pointing downwards. It serves as the gas holder. If two such barrels are not available, one can construct the broader container out of bricks and cement morter. The fermenter barrel is provided with an L shaped inlet pipe, that is 5 cm wide. The horizontal arm of the L should be about 40 cm long and the vertical arm should be 100 cm long. It requires some plumbing skill to fit the inlet pipe. For fitting the inlet pipe, a hole of adequate diameter is cut into the vertical side of the barrel, as near the base as possible. The outer barrel is also provided with an outlet pipe near its top end, through which the effluent slurry can flow out. The inner barrel, that serves as the gas holder, is provided with a gas tap, fitted at the topmost part of the barrel. The gas is supplied to the burner through this tap. The gas holder barrel is weighed down by means of a sack filled with sand or any other material, weighing about 20 kg. In this way, the gas is provided to the burner under a certain constant pressure. In India, one can buy a special domestic biogas burner for this gas, but if that is not available, one can use an LPG burner, with the pin-hole nipple removed.
To start the system, an aqueous slurry made of about 200 litres of water, about 10 kg cattle dung and about 200 grams of flour of any starchy material, is poured into the system through the inlet pipe. The gas cock of the gas holder barrel is kept open, while filling the slurry. After filling the slurry, the gas tap is closed. The fermentation process produces gas which will accumulate in the gas holder and lift it up. Test this gas for its combustibility. It may happen, that the gas produced during the first few days does not burn. Just let it exhaust by opening the gas tap so that the gas holder barrel sinks back into the outer barrel. But then do not forget to close the gas tap. Add daily about 200 g of flour, after mixing it with about a litre of water, to the fermenter, through the inlet pipe. Use a plunger to push the flour slurry into the barrel. Otherwise it would remain in the inlet pipe and ferment inside the pipe. Once the system starts to produce combustible gas, increase the amount of flour to daily 500 grams. Flour always contains a small quantity of protein, which gives rise to a small amount of H2S and NH3, which produce foul odour. Therefore the gas plant cannot be kept inside an unventilated kitchen. One should keep it outside the house, just beneath the kitchen window, and take the gas into the kitchen by means of a rubber pipe.
There was a comment about the amount of methane produced by the system. It is right that one should get about 400 litres of methane from 1 kg starch or sugar, but the astonishing thing was that the gas that one obtained from this system consisted of almost pure methane. What happens to the carbondioxide? I assume that it is dissolved in water and just diffuses out of the system. Remember the school chemistry experiment in which a candle is burnt inside a bell jar? In this experiment, the water surrounding the bell jar rises up inside the bell jar because the carbon dioxide produced by the burning candle dissolves in water.
A.D.Karve

Richard Stanley wrote:

Dear Dr KArve,I would like to offer a sincere appreciation of your work on the newmethane generator technology AD. and I hope that atsome point it can find a home here in biomass-rich Uganda.To that end, I am cc'ing this email totwo colleagues here in Uganda, Dr. Charles Kwesiga, Director of the UgandaIndustrial research and Technology Institute and \ Mr Olaf Etrz, asenior technical adviser to UIRI.Thanks again for sharing it.Richard StanleyLegacy Foundation

From andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM Sun Nov 16 15:54:41 2003
From: andrew.heggie at DTN.NTL.COM (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: To Char or not to Char
In-Reply-To: <00dc01c3a99f$f0b82500$0e6d0443@net>
Message-ID: <SUN.16.NOV.2003.205441.0000.>

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:36:16 -0700, Ron Larson wrote:

>
> I am still amazed that we have only turned up one reference on the
>waste heat use subject (from Andrew Heggie) where the substantial "waste"
>energy was put to good use. (and we still don't know exactly what was
>said).

Sorry Ron, I have the whole synopsis, which bits did you want
clarification on? It looks like a simple ring kiln with a furnace on
top to "incinerate" the offgas, the heat from which is ducted to the
dryer.

We had a member from Sri Lanka (Ray W) who may be able to trace the
actual project.

AJH

From anilrajvanshi at VSNL.COM Mon Nov 17 09:28:02 2003
From: anilrajvanshi at VSNL.COM (Anil K Rajvanshi)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:41 2004
Subject: Cooking and lighting energy R&D strategy
Message-ID: <MON.17.NOV.2003.092802.0500.ANILRAJVANSHI@VSNL.COM>

Hello everybody!

I hope you will enjoy reading the following article on R&D strategy for
cooking and lighting energy for rural areas.

http://pune.ancharnet.in/nariphaltan/housenergy.htm (requires Acrobat
Reader)

http://education.vsnl.com/nimbkar/housenergy.html

Cheers.

Anil K Rajvanshi

From anilrajvanshi at VSNL.COM Mon Nov 17 09:36:29 2003
From: anilrajvanshi at VSNL.COM (Anil K Rajvanshi)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Sorry for the wrong link
Message-ID: <MON.17.NOV.2003.193629.0500.>

The correct link is; http://pune.sancharnet.in/nariphaltan/housenergy.pdf

AKR

From anilrajvanshi at VSNL.COM Mon Nov 17 20:49:52 2003
From: anilrajvanshi at VSNL.COM (Anil K Rajvanshi)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Pyrolysis gasifier
Message-ID: <MON.17.NOV.2003.204952.0500.ANILRAJVANSHI@VSNL.COM>

I hope the following paper will throw some light on the debate of char
production from biomass.

http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/Gasifier.pdf

Cheers.

Anil K Rajvanshi

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Tue Nov 18 00:01:54 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Pyrolysis gasifier
Message-ID: <MON.17.NOV.2003.220154.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Anil (cc stoves and others)

Thanks you for this very interesting paper. I hope you can expand on a
few issues:

1. Has there been subsequent successful introduction of this unit
commercially? What response from the users? Some of us have been
responding to a young Indian who seems to be interested in this - and I hope
he will take this opportunity to contact you as well.

2. I was surprised that the econcomic analysis at the end of the paper did
not seem to give any financial credit to the 24% charcoal production. Did
I miss something? Could you now redo these computations if you had a ready
buyer for the char? How would you allocate expenses to the two forms of
output (or otherwise figure out how to do the pricing)?

3. You mention use of the char as a soil additive. Can you report any
results in improved agricultural output?
(List member Danny Day is very interested in this aspect of charcoal
production).

4. You mention recirculation of some of the exhaust gases. Could you be
more specific on quantities recirculated and the benefits of this operation.
Is this common for anything else you have worked on - or is this unique to
the downdraft pyrolyzer?

5. It appears that the pyrolyzer operation was simpler than the usual
gasifier operation (as you were not interested in cooling, etc). But if the
char was not of economic value, why was the unit not operated with the more
usual few percent of charcoal output?

6. The particular end-use for your pyrolysis gases seems excellent. Have
you any experience with other applications?

Thanks again. Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Anil K Rajvanshi <anilrajvanshi@VSNL.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 6:49 PM
Subject: Pyrolysis gasifier

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Anil K Rajvanshi <anilrajvanshi@VSNL.COM>
> Subject: Pyrolysis gasifier
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> I hope the following paper will throw some light on the debate of char
> production from biomass.
>
> http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/Gasifier.pdf
>
> Cheers.
>
> Anil K Rajvanshi
>

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Wed Nov 19 08:58:14 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Fw: Contributions for the next issue of ENERGIANet
Message-ID: <WED.19.NOV.2003.065814.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers:

I hope that some "stoves" members can make a contribution to this
valuable resource.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Chesha Wettasinha <c.wettasinha@etcnl.nl>
To: <c.wettasinha@etcnl.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:46 AM
Subject: Contributions for the next issue of ENERGIANet

> Dear ENERGIANet readers,
>
> I am in the process of compiling the next issue of the e-bulletin. Please
> forward to me any information you would like to share with the other
> readers.
>
> Thanks and warm regards,
>
> Chesha Wettasinha
>
> ENERGIA Secretariat
> ETC Foundation
> PO Box 64, 3830 AB Leusden
> The Netherlands
> Tel: 00-31-33-4326067
> Fax: 00-331-33-494791
> www.energia.org
>
>

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Thu Nov 20 01:17:33 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Fw: Pyrolysis gasifier
Message-ID: <WED.19.NOV.2003.231733.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers (cc Anil Rajvanshi) :

Below are the answers to the several questions I asked after receiving Anil's contribution on a pyrolysis type of gasification device. I only ask a few more questions.

----- Original Message -----
From: anilrajvanshi
To: Ron Larson
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pyrolysis gasifier

Dear Ron,

I am replying to your mail in the same chronological order as the questions asked.

1. The introduction of this technology was in a commercial place. However storage of dry combustible biomass in the factory premises which was in urban locality of Pune was a major problem.
RWL: I was wondering if the technology had been successfully introduced - especially as the results seemed quite good. I have the sense that there may not have been too many of these sold yet (unfortunately - as the results look quite good).

2. This paper was the outcome of the work done at actual user industry ( which produced specialty chemicals and ceramics) who were not interested in the raw charcoal. They wanted activated charcoal which would have increased the cost. However charcoal credit will certainly improve the economics. We are not doing those computations presently.
RWL: I hope anyone who may have looked at this type of economics will jump in. I see no reason that the charcoal should not have been saleable at at least the cost of the input biomass - which should significantly improve the economics.

3. In 2-3 years that we did the experiments we did not find any problems with the use of char as soil conditioner. However long term results need to be investigated.
RWL: Anil - there are some who believe that one can achieve a doubling of the ag output from land where charcoal is sequestered. I am not aware of any problems associated with this use. I was hoping that you had seen some improvement.

4. The recirculation of flue gases was done to minimize the heat losses from the furnace. This has nothing to do with the gasifier design where no such circulation takes place.
RWL: Thanks for this clarification. I had misunderstood. A very interesting thing to do amd I hope anyone else doing this can report their results.

5. Char has a good value for use as a fuel for rural cooking. The gasifier design allowed 25% char production. However if the char production was reduced then the bridging of biomass in the reactor took place. You should appreciate that the work presented in the paper was an outcome of 10 years of R&D and about 4 generations of design evolution. We think this is probably one of the very few loose biomass gasification technology at such a scale.
RWL: Yes, I think you are correct that yours is one of only a few such designs. I can appreciate from talking with Alex English that you are working with a very difficult (but plentiful) input fuel. Again congratulations for having stuck with it and getting such good results. Obviously you are quite happy with your results and I believe that this development should be expanded further.

6. We have also used this gasifier to power our furnace to produce syrup from sweet sorghum. Syrup production requires controlled temperature which is easily obtained by gas control.
RWL: Good. Again thanks for sharing this technology with us. Would you agree with your downdraft approach that this is better suited for indistrial scale rather than for household cooking use? Or should there be further development for stoves?
Kind regards.

Anil K. Rajvanshi
Director
Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute
P.O.Box 44, Phaltan-415523
Maharashtra, India
Ph: 91-2166-222396/220945
Fax: 91-2166-220945
E-mail: nariphaltan@sancharnet.in

http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net
http://www.nariphaltan.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson
To: Anil K Rajvanshi ; STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Danny Day ; Satish Khadse
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Pyrolysis gasifier

Anil (cc stoves and others)

Thanks you for this very interesting paper. I hope you can expand on a
few issues:

1. Has there been subsequent successful introduction of this unit
commercially? What response from the users? Some of us have been
responding to a young Indian who seems to be interested in this - and I hope
he will take this opportunity to contact you as well.

2. I was surprised that the econcomic analysis at the end of the paper did
not seem to give any financial credit to the 24% charcoal production. Did
I miss something? Could you now redo these computations if you had a ready
buyer for the char? How would you allocate expenses to the two forms of
output (or otherwise figure out how to do the pricing)?

3. You mention use of the char as a soil additive. Can you report any
results in improved agricultural output?
(List member Danny Day is very interested in this aspect of charcoal
production).

4. You mention recirculation of some of the exhaust gases. Could you be
more specific on quantities recirculated and the benefits of this operation.
Is this common for anything else you have worked on - or is this unique to
the downdraft pyrolyzer?

5. It appears that the pyrolyzer operation was simpler than the usual
gasifier operation (as you were not interested in cooling, etc). But if the
char was not of economic value, why was the unit not operated with the more
usual few percent of charcoal output?

6. The particular end-use for your pyrolysis gases seems excellent. Have
you any experience with other applications?

Thanks again. Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Anil K Rajvanshi <anilrajvanshi@VSNL.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 6:49 PM
Subject: Pyrolysis gasifier

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Anil K Rajvanshi <anilrajvanshi@VSNL.COM>
> Subject: Pyrolysis gasifier
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> I hope the following paper will throw some light on the debate of char
> production from biomass.
>
> http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/Gasifier.pdf
>
> Cheers.
>
> Anil K Rajvanshi
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Thu Nov 20 08:45:19 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Fw: Pyrolysis gasifier
Message-ID: <THU.20.NOV.2003.064519.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Anil, Ron and All:

I have known Dr. Anil Rajvanshi and his institute (in Phaltan, India) for
10-15 years and we have had visits and discussions both there and here.
Hope he returns soon and we'll take some more walks.

Anil is very creative in useful areas (loose biomass - good name).

I have known Ron Larson even longer and appreciate all his work moderating
this site and working on stoves and charcoal. Also, Gretchen Larson is a
supurb potter....

Sometimes it's nice to know who is talking....

TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 11:17 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Fw: Pyrolysis gasifier

Stovers (cc Anil Rajvanshi) :

Below are the answers to the several questions I asked after receiving
Anil's contribution on a pyrolysis type of gasification device. I only ask
a few more questions.

----- Original Message -----
From: anilrajvanshi
To: Ron Larson
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pyrolysis gasifier

Dear Ron,

I am replying to your mail in the same chronological order as the questions
asked.

1. The introduction of this technology was in a commercial place. However
storage of dry combustible biomass in the factory premises which was in
urban locality of Pune was a major problem.
RWL: I was wondering if the technology had been successfully
introduced - especially as the results seemed quite good. I have the sense
that there may not have been too many of these sold yet (unfortunately - as
the results look quite good).

2. This paper was the outcome of the work done at actual user industry (
which produced specialty chemicals and ceramics) who were not interested in
the raw charcoal. They wanted activated charcoal which would have increased
the cost. However charcoal credit will certainly improve the economics. We
are not doing those computations presently.
RWL: I hope anyone who may have looked at this type of economics will
jump in. I see no reason that the charcoal should not have been saleable at
at least the cost of the input biomass - which should significantly improve
the economics.

3. In 2-3 years that we did the experiments we did not find any problems
with the use of char as soil conditioner. However long term results need to
be investigated.
RWL: Anil - there are some who believe that one can achieve a doubling
of the ag output from land where charcoal is sequestered. I am not aware of
any problems associated with this use. I was hoping that you had seen some
improvement.

4. The recirculation of flue gases was done to minimize the heat losses from
the furnace. This has nothing to do with the gasifier design where no such
circulation takes place.
RWL: Thanks for this clarification. I had misunderstood. A very
interesting thing to do amd I hope anyone else doing this can report their
results.

5. Char has a good value for use as a fuel for rural cooking. The gasifier
design allowed 25% char production. However if the char production was
reduced then the bridging of biomass in the reactor took place. You should
appreciate that the work presented in the paper was an outcome of 10 years
of R&D and about 4 generations of design evolution. We think this is
probably one of the very few loose biomass gasification technology at such a
scale.
RWL: Yes, I think you are correct that yours is one of only a few
such designs. I can appreciate from talking with Alex English that you are
working with a very difficult (but plentiful) input fuel. Again
congratulations for having stuck with it and getting such good results.
Obviously you are quite happy with your results and I believe that this
development should be expanded further.

6. We have also used this gasifier to power our furnace to produce syrup
from sweet sorghum. Syrup production requires controlled temperature which
is easily obtained by gas control.
RWL: Good. Again thanks for sharing this technology with us. Would
you agree with your downdraft approach that this is better suited for
indistrial scale rather than for household cooking use? Or should there be
further development for stoves?
Kind regards.

Anil K. Rajvanshi
Director
Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute
P.O.Box 44, Phaltan-415523
Maharashtra, India
Ph: 91-2166-222396/220945
Fax: 91-2166-220945
E-mail: nariphaltan@sancharnet.in

http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net
http://www.nariphaltan.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson
To: Anil K Rajvanshi ; STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Danny Day ; Satish Khadse
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Pyrolysis gasifier

Anil (cc stoves and others)

Thanks you for this very interesting paper. I hope you can expand on
a
few issues:

1. Has there been subsequent successful introduction of this unit
commercially? What response from the users? Some of us have been
responding to a young Indian who seems to be interested in this - and I
hope
he will take this opportunity to contact you as well.

2. I was surprised that the econcomic analysis at the end of the paper
did
not seem to give any financial credit to the 24% charcoal production.
Did
I miss something? Could you now redo these computations if you had a
ready
buyer for the char? How would you allocate expenses to the two forms of
output (or otherwise figure out how to do the pricing)?

3. You mention use of the char as a soil additive. Can you report any
results in improved agricultural output?
(List member Danny Day is very interested in this aspect of charcoal
production).

4. You mention recirculation of some of the exhaust gases. Could you be
more specific on quantities recirculated and the benefits of this
operation.
Is this common for anything else you have worked on - or is this unique to
the downdraft pyrolyzer?

5. It appears that the pyrolyzer operation was simpler than the usual
gasifier operation (as you were not interested in cooling, etc). But if
the
char was not of economic value, why was the unit not operated with the
more
usual few percent of charcoal output?

6. The particular end-use for your pyrolysis gases seems excellent. Have
you any experience with other applications?

Thanks again. Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Anil K Rajvanshi <anilrajvanshi@VSNL.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 6:49 PM
Subject: Pyrolysis gasifier

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Anil K Rajvanshi <anilrajvanshi@VSNL.COM>
> Subject: Pyrolysis gasifier

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> I hope the following paper will throw some light on the debate of char
> production from biomass.
>
> http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/Gasifier.pdf
>
> Cheers.
>
> Anil K Rajvanshi
>

From kmbryden at IASTATE.EDU Thu Nov 20 10:51:19 2003
From: kmbryden at IASTATE.EDU (Mark Bryden)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Design and Performance Guidelines Workshop
Message-ID: <THU.20.NOV.2003.095119.0600.KMBRYDEN@IASTATE.EDU>

Fellow stovers,

You are invited to participate in a Design and Performance Guidelines
Workshop in Seattle on February 2-3, 2004. The Workshop is being sponsored
by the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air and Engineers in Technical,
Humanitarian Opportunities of Service-learning (ETHOS). We will be
establishing broad design and performance principles for home cooking and
heating practices that can be used by a wide range of organizations
throughout the world. These principles will aid us in our mission to
improve health, livelihood and quality of life by reducing exposure to air
pollution, primarily among women and children, from household energy use.

Come join with a group of committed professionals to:
? define the terms clean, efficient, affordable, reliable, and safe as they
relate to home cooking and heating practices;
? identify design and performance principles that represent best practices
from throughout the world; and
? establish broad design and performance guidelines for improved cookstoves
and heating devices that can be used by members of the Partnership for
Clean Indoor Air.
These design and performance guidelines will address a variety of
technologies and fuel types, and will be appropriate for outreach and
education materials.

The Design and Performance Guidelines Workshop will directly follow the
annual ETHOS Conference that will be held in Seattle, January 31 - February
1, 2004. We hope that many ETHOS members and Conference participants will
also participate in the Design and Performance Guidelines Workshop. For
more information on ETHOS and the ETHOS 2004 Conference, please go to
http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/~kmbryden/ETHOSbrochure.htm or contact Lisa
B?ttner at lbuttner@winrock.org or 703-525-9430 x663.

More information on the Partnership Design and Performance Guidelines
Workshop will be distributed later this year. If you have any questions
now, please contact Brenda Doroski at doroski.brenda@epa.gov or
202-343-9764 or John Mitchell at mitchell.john@epa.gov or 202-343-9031.

Mark Bryden
President, ETHOS

ph: 515-294-3891

From dstill at EPUD.NET Fri Nov 21 01:16:19 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Introduction to the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air
Message-ID: <THU.20.NOV.2003.221619.0800.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Friends,

 

I thought that it might answer some questions to introduce the Partnership
for Clean Indoor Air. Click on the following and visit the flier describing
the organization:

 

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/images/cleanairflyer.pdf

 

Here are parts of that description:

 

"The Partnership for Clean Indoor Air, led by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency was formed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development
in Johannesburg to address the increased environmental health risk faced by
more than 2 billion people in the developing world who burn traditional
biomass fuels indoors for cooking and heating. According to the World Health
Organization, their increased exposure results in an estimated 2 million
premature deaths each year, largely among women and children. The
Partnership is designed to bring together governments, industry and
non-governmental organizations to increase the use of affordable, reliable,
clean, and efficient home cooking and heating practices. The Partnership for
Clean Indoor Air aspires to halving mortality related to indoor air
pollution in targeted areas."

 

The Partners

 

Countries

Canada, Italy, Mexico, Mozambique, South Africa, USA

 

Private Industry

LPG Association of South Africa

 

NGO's

Aprovecho Research Center, Colorado State University Engines and Energy
Conversion Laboratory, Global Environment and Technology Foundation, Health
Effects Institute, HELPS International, Intermediate Technology Development
Group, Prolena, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Shell Foundation,
UC/Berkeley's Renewable and Appropriate Technology Energy Lab, Resources for
the Future, Trees, Water, & People, University of WA, Winrock International

 

International Organizations

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), UN Department of Economic and
Social Affairs (UNDESA), UN Environment Programme (UNEP), World Bank, World
health Organization (WHO)

 

It's been great working with the Partnership and with Mark Bryden, president
of ETHOS, we warmly invite all stovers to the meetings January 31 to
February 3.

 

All Best,

 

Dean

From dstill at EPUD.NET Fri Nov 21 21:25:30 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: 17 Excerpts from Woodburning Cookstoves
Message-ID: <FRI.21.NOV.2003.182530.0800.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Excerpts from "Woodburning Cookstoves", Prasad, Sangen, Visser, 1984
(Eindhoven)

 

1.) The cut-off distance for subsistence collection is estimated to be
10km. When the distance exceeds this value, agricultural/pastoral
communities turn to agricultural/animal waste for their cooking fuel. (Page
1)

2.) So far the design of the majority of woodburning cookstoves has been
done by development workers who have had no benefit of specific technical
training. (Page 3)

3.) The power level of a cookstove with reasonable efficiency need be no
more than 2 to 4KW at the primary fuel level. (Page 4)

4.) The efficiency of conversion of the chemical energy to thermal energy
is quite high (upwards of 90% in most of the experimental results known to
the authors) and is generally of not much concern here. As such the need for
more efficient combustion is not from the point of view of the fuel economy
of the stove, but the harmful nature of the unburned products of combustion.
(Page 10)

5.) .stove designs should be such that they could be marketed in the
price range of US$ 2-10. (Page 14)

6.) Per kg of wood the stoichiometric amount of air is 4.48 m3,
subdivided in 2.70 m3 and 1.78 m3 for volatiles and charcoal respectively;
assuming that 20% of the wood is burned as charcoal. (Page 41)

7.) .it can be assumed that the gas temperature in the neighborhood of a
burning charcoal surface is 1100K (Wagner) (Page 42)

8.) Values for temperatures of the gases are 1260K and 950K for a
volatile excess air factor of 1.5 and 2.5 respectively. (Page 43)

9.) It appears that 12% of the wood heat is radiated to the pan. If we
compare this to common practice in developing countries with an open fire
efficiency between 10 and 15% it can be stated improved stoves can only show
a higher efficiency due to optimal use of the convective heat transfer.
(Page55)

10.) .the efficiency (of the open fire) lies in a
band between 21% and 28%...efficiencies up to 36% can be obtained. (Page 64)

11.) The radiant contribution to the pan increases
from about 1/5 to1/3 of the total heat input to the pan as the distance to
between the pan bottom and the fuelbed increases. The wall itself provides
about 7.5 to 12% of the heat to the pan. In general, the wall heat loss in a
closed stove is strongly governed by the area ratio of the pan surface and
the wall surface. The function of a good design is to maximize this ratio
without sacrificing combustion quality. Under these conditions the
contribution of radiant heat transfer to the pan from the walls will be of
marginal importance. (Page 74)

12.) The annular space between pan and shield is an
important part of the shielded fire. It is the major zone for convective
heat transfer to the pan and the design tries to increase this heat transfer
by increasing the flue gas velocity. Therefore, the gap must be made as
small as possible, with an increasing flow resistance as a consequence.
(Page 76)

13.) Of the flow control methods, control of
combustion air is to be preferred. (Verhaart) (Page 77)

14.) .an ideal burner design with the power output
ranging from 2.64KW to 0.44KW.fuel economy is dependent on three factors,
namely, the efficiency (as a function of power output), the maximum power
output, and the ratio of maximum to minimum power outputs. (Pages 108-109)

15.) A closed stove with air control offers another
interesting possibility: the control of burning of charcoal, left after the
volatiles have burnt.First only volatiles are burnt.the high power volatile
phase.produce a charcoal bed of 85 grams of charcoal. Burning at 400 W, this
amount of fuel will last for 118 minutes. (112-113)

16.) Thus the health threatening effects of smoke
emissions of cooking fires are very severe not only for the cook but also
for the occupants of space in which the cooking is done. The first solution
to this problem is to provide the stove with a chimney.(127)

17.) There is no genuine alternative to woodfuel and
woodstoves for cooking in rural areas.A stove that has a sufficient level of
control is the single means by which dramatic savings in fuel consumption
can be achieved. (Page 132-133)

.

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Mon Nov 24 10:05:55 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Fw: Gelfuel Stoves request
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.080555.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Stovers:

It has been a while since we have had any dialog on gelfuel stoves.
Anyone interested is urged to help Mr. Williams per his request below.

Any new information from developers would probably be of general
interest as well.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Williams <wwilliams@w-ces.com>
To: <Visser@btgworld.com>
Cc: <ronallarson@qwest.net>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 7:57 AM
Subject: Gelfuel Stoves

> Dear Sirs,
>
> I am very interested in learning more about your stoves, and
> the possibility of acquiring them for the Caribbean market.
>
> Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wayne Williams
> Director
> Williams Consulting and Energy Services Inc.
> Box 770665 Coral Springs
> FL 33077
>
> Please visit our website at http://www.w-ces.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
> authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any
> action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately by responding to this email and then
> delete it from your system. Williams Consulting and Energy Services Inc.,
is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the
information contained in this
> communication nor for any delay in its receipt.
>
>
>

From crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ Tue Nov 25 18:23:33 2003
From: crispin at NEWDAWN.SZ (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Vesto update
Message-ID: <WED.26.NOV.2003.012333.0200.CRISPIN@NEWDAWN.SZ>

Dear Stovers

It has been a while since I reported on the Vesto project. As a reminder
this was started as a bit of a lark by a few individuals to try to develop a
stove privately and sell it commercially on a scale that would significantly
affect the amount of wood fuel available, in effect doubling the wood
resource by reducing demand for it. The initiators have been volunteering
their time and talents throughout the process to get the project off the
ground and have been trying to have a bit of fun in the process to keep
everyone interested.

The stove was developed last year and was available 'commercially' from
about March 2003. We have reached the stage of making 500 stove bodies at a
time and producing them in lots of 110.

Today marks the first day that the stoves have been available at a SPAR
store. This is a chain store that is owned individually and operated as a
network. Each store owner has to be convinced what to carry. The Katlehong
Spar is in a township west of Johannesburg. The main focus will be
demonstrations in two shops in the Rustenburg area which is in a
wood-burning region.

We have tried to make this an example of 'how to privately commercialize an
innovative cooking stove' so people in other countries can learn from it, if
it works. We have had T shirts made with "Vesto" on them, logos put on
things, baseball caps, large sign boards, aprons and oven mitts, and trained
some cooking demonstrators. In other words, we are marketing them just as
one would market any new product: a little radio coverage with ads, some
in-store promotion actually cooking something tasty and a printed box (which
we do not have yet).

The coming weeks will tell us whether this approach is going to work. The
demonstrations are being done with charcoal because it is a fuel people in
the target market know. They will of course use wood now and then which
will show it is a possible alternative (and save money overall as well). We
have consistent reports of roadside food cookers preparing a meal with 4
standard charcoal briquettes (a feat I was unable to reproduce) so the fuel
saving will be obvious.

Testing

Something that has been of interest to me is the large difference I get in
the percentage heat utilized (PHU) when compared with some other testers.
The recently completed (first draft) of Marco Peter's masters thesis has
thrown some light on this difference. He has been testing a light ceramic
Rocket stove with Michael Hoenes' tin can stove enclosures in Lesotho. He
did comparative tests using two different pots: the long handled high
cylindrical black pot made in Zimbabwe that was used in the German
university tests of the Vesto, and a 3.8 litre cast iron "No. 2"
globe-shaped 3-legged pot. As I have a cast iron pot of that side, I can
reproduce those numbers (30-38% PHU). The other pot is not available in
this region.

What was interesting was that the Zim pot used in the German tests (about
15-25% PHU depending on water level) was used by Marco in Lesotho, and he
got similar results (up to 25% PHU). I did make mention of this pot in an
earlier message to this group. The low values confirm again my suspicion
that the stove should be tested with a pot that is at least similar to the
one for which it was designed.

The ideal pot would be 10 inches in diameter and hold 4 to 6 litres. These
are widely available here. The round-bottomed No. 2 cast iron pot is not as
efficient at picking up heat though it is also used a lot. I feel somewhat
vindicated for wondering out loud about whether the German tests were
indicative of the situation on the ground here and if it was related to the
pot chosen. They could not obtain an aluminum 4 litre pot in Germany so
used what they had. As for the emissions tests I have to rely on those with
the lovely equipment!

So far, no 'independent lab' has reported on the Vesto using the pot for
which it was designed. When it is, I am confident that the figures we
consistently get (well above 40% PHU under ideal conditions) will be
reproduced.

Quite independent of the independent labs is the public who will notice that
they find real and significant fuel savings, decreased lighting times,
faster response to heat demand, low smoke and become convinced that
investing in an improved wood stove is a good idea, and hopefully tell their
friends.

Thus the experiment continues to see if an improve cooking stove can be
commercialized with standard marketing techniques.

Best regards
Crispin
www.newdawnengineering.com

From rmiranda at INET.COM.BR Wed Nov 26 13:08:59 2003
From: rmiranda at INET.COM.BR (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Fwd: Smoke the Killer in teh Kitchen
Message-ID: <WED.26.NOV.2003.160859.0200.RMIRANDA@INET.COM.BR>

>Delivered-To: rmiranda@inet.com.br
>From: Alison Doig <alisond@itdg.org.uk>
>To:
>Subject: Smoke the Killer in teh Kitchen
>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:01:47 -0000
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>
>New report from ITDG:
>Smoke - the killer in the kitchen
>Smoke in the home from cooking on wood, dung and crop waste kills nearly one
>million children a year.
>The total annual death toll is 1.6 million - a life lost every 20 seconds.
>It is a larger killer than malaria and is the fourth greatest risk to death
>and disease in the world's poorest countries. Despite this, little has been
>done to tackle this chronic crisis.
>In its report, Smoke: the Killer in the Kitchen, ITDG is calling for global
>action to save the lives of 1.6 million men, women and children lost each
>year to lethal levels of household smoke.
>Report available in PDF form at :
>
>www.itdg.org/smoke
>
>Or to purchase from ITDG Publishing:
>http://www.developmentbookshop.com/book.phtml?isbn=1853395889
>
>
>
> > Dr Alison Doig
> > alisond@ITDG.org.uk
> > Intermediate Technology Development Group
> > Schumacher Centre for Technology Development
> > Bourton Hall
> > Bourton On Dunsmore
> > Warwickshire
> > CV23 9QZ
> > Tel: +44 - 01926 634400
> > Fax: +44 - 01926 634401
> > http://www.itdg.org
> >
> >
> > Company Reg. No 871954, England
> > Charity No 247257
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
>solely for the use of the individuals or entity to whom they are addressed.
>ITDG and it subsidiaries(ITC and ITDG Publishing) cannot accept liability or
>contractual inferences for statements which are clearly the senders own and
>not made on behalf of ITDG or it subsidiaries(ITC and ITDG Publishing).

From aufempen at DYSON.BRISNET.ORG.AU Wed Nov 26 17:48:06 2003
From: aufempen at DYSON.BRISNET.ORG.AU (@uy North)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: How:Produce few milliamps of electricity by warming disparate
metals on a stove?
Message-ID: <THU.27.NOV.2003.084806.1000.AUFEMPEN@DYSON.BRISNET.ORG.AU>

How do I produce some minute amount of electricity by warming some disparate
metals on a stove or in the stove?

I remember doing this experiment at college, using copper and iron brazed
together.

I need to produce about 100 milliamps at 6 volts or 0.6 watt of energy to
drive a sensor.

Anyone got any idea if this is possible and if it is the right list to ask
this type of question.

Guy
Brisbane Australia

From phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET Wed Nov 26 18:42:44 2003
From: phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: How:Produce few milliamps of electricity by warming disparate
metals on a stove?
Message-ID: <WED.26.NOV.2003.154244.0800.PHOENIX98604@EARTHLINK.NET>

Guy,

You are seeking information on Thermoelectric Generators and the Seebeck
Effect which can easily be found using those words on a GOOGLE Search.

Here is another applicable URL
http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/31jan-6feb/generators.htm

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
10505 NE 285TH Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-666-1883 voice
phoenix98604@earthlink.net

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "@uy North" <aufempen@dyson.brisnet.org.au>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 2:48 PM
Subject: [STOVES] How:Produce few milliamps of electricity by warming
disparate metals on a stove?

> How do I produce some minute amount of electricity by warming some
disparate
> metals on a stove or in the stove?
>
> I remember doing this experiment at college, using copper and iron brazed
> together.
>
> I need to produce about 100 milliamps at 6 volts or 0.6 watt of energy to
> drive a sensor.
>
> Anyone got any idea if this is possible and if it is the right list to ask
> this type of question.
>
> Guy
> Brisbane Australia

From rmiranda at INET.COM.BR Fri Nov 28 19:45:44 2003
From: rmiranda at INET.COM.BR (Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills millions'
Message-ID: <FRI.28.NOV.2003.224544.0200.RMIRANDA@INET.COM.BR>

News from ITDG, Rog?rio

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sat Nov 29 11:39:35 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Fw: Contributions for the next issue of ENERGIANet
In-Reply-To: <001501c3aea5$2e326f80$e36d0443@net>
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.103935.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Ron and all,

Can you tell us about this group and its bulletin? any sample copies on
the web??

I could not display the web page given below.

Paul

At 06:58 AM 11/19/03 -0700, Ron Larson wrote:
>Stovers:
>
> I hope that some "stoves" members can make a contribution to this
>valuable resource.
>
>Ron
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Chesha Wettasinha <c.wettasinha@etcnl.nl>
>To: <c.wettasinha@etcnl.nl>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:46 AM
>Subject: Contributions for the next issue of ENERGIANet
>
>
> > Dear ENERGIANet readers,
> >
> > I am in the process of compiling the next issue of the e-bulletin. Please
> > forward to me any information you would like to share with the other
> > readers.
> >
> > Thanks and warm regards,
> >
> > Chesha Wettasinha
> >
> > ENERGIA Secretariat
> > ETC Foundation
> > PO Box 64, 3830 AB Leusden
> > The Netherlands
> > Tel: 00-31-33-4326067
> > Fax: 00-331-33-494791
> > www.energia.org
> >
> >

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 Sat Nov 29 12:06:28 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Fw: Pyrolysis gasifier
In-Reply-To: <002f01c3af6c$89acfc50$35d80818@cwcn7uspc42i87>
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.110628.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Dear Anil,

I am very interested in your work and I will be in India in January
(2004). Mainly in north, but also in Indore and Bhopal and trying to get
to Pune to see the Karve's. Please tell me where is Phaltan in relation to
Pune or other cities. Please reply directly (not via the whole list) about
possibilities to visit your operations.

Paul

At 06:45 AM 11/20/03 -0700, TBReed wrote:
>Dear Anil, Ron and All:
>
>I have known Dr. Anil Rajvanshi and his institute (in Phaltan, India) for
>10-15 years and we have had visits and discussions both there and here.
>Hope he returns soon and we'll take some more walks.
>
>Anil is very creative in useful areas (loose biomass - good name).

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 ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Nov 29 14:24:02 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Fw: Contributions for the next issue of ENERGIANet
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.122402.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Hi Paul:

The following is the start of a more extensive description found at
www.energia.org:

"ENERGIA is an international network on gender and sustainable energy
which links individuals and groups concerned with energy, sustainable
development, and gender. ENERGIA's goal is to contribute to the empowerment
of rural and urban poor women through a specific focus on energy issues.

Founded in 1995, ENERGIA is now active in Africa, Asia, Latin America
and Oceania, as well as in Europe, North America and Australia. At present
more than 1800 subscribers receive ENERGIA News. Where ENERGIA Phase 1
(1996-1999) was focused mainly around the production of ENERGIA News,
ENERGIA Phase 2 (1999-2002) was centred around seven main activities,
including the newsletter, capacity building, advocacy, establishing a
resource centre, and regionalisation."

I am sure there are many joint members, but we have not had much
interaction - and I would hope that might change.

Ron

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Contributions for the next issue of ENERGIANet

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Contributions for the next issue of ENERGIANet
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> Ron and all,
>
> Can you tell us about this group and its bulletin? any sample copies on
> the web??
>
> I could not display the web page given below.
>
> Paul
>
> At 06:58 AM 11/19/03 -0700, Ron Larson wrote:
> >Stovers:
> >
> > I hope that some "stoves" members can make a contribution to this
> >valuable resource.
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Chesha Wettasinha <c.wettasinha@etcnl.nl>
> >To: <c.wettasinha@etcnl.nl>
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:46 AM
> >Subject: Contributions for the next issue of ENERGIANet
> >
> >
> > > Dear ENERGIANet readers,
> > >
> > > I am in the process of compiling the next issue of the e-bulletin.
Please
> > > forward to me any information you would like to share with the other
> > > readers.
> > >
> > > Thanks and warm regards,
> > >
> > > Chesha Wettasinha
> > >
> > > ENERGIA Secretariat
> > > ETC Foundation
> > > PO Box 64, 3830 AB Leusden
> > > The Netherlands
> > > Tel: 00-31-33-4326067
> > > Fax: 00-331-33-494791
> > > www.energia.org
> > >
> > >
>
> 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 ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Nov 29 14:50:25 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills
millions'
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.125025.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Indoor smoke 'kills millions'Stovers:

You probably received an incomplete message from Rogerio (as it was sent with an attachment). Below is the version received by Ethos members.

You can also find the story at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3244214.stm

Below and at the site there are several other BBC stove/health stories.

Such stories are the way for us to get more attention paid to stoves development and improvement.

Rogerio - Thanks for bringing these to our attention.

 

Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG ; ethos@vrac.iastate.edu
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills millions'

 

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

NEWS SPORT WEATHER WORLD SERVICE A-Z INDEX SEARCH



Low Graphics version | Change edition Feedback | Help

News Front Page

Africa
Americas
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Middle East
South Asia
UK
Business
Health
Science/Nature
Technology
Entertainment
-----------------
Have Your Say
-----------------
Country Profiles
In Depth
-----------------
Programmes
-----------------RELATED SITES

Last Updated: Friday, 28 November, 2003, 07:44 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Indoor smoke 'kills millions'

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

Smoke shroud for a Nepali village
Smoke from indoor cooking fires kills one person every 20 seconds in the developing world, UK campaigners say.
The Intermediate Technology Development Group says smoke in the home kills more people than malaria does, and almost as many as unsafe water and sanitation.

The problem affects more than two billion people who burn wood, charcoal, vegetation and dung for heating food.

The United Nations says inefficient stoves can be as bad for health as smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

It's a technology that has changed little since the Stone Age and turns homes into death traps for women and children

Cowan Coventry, ITDG
ITDG says 2.4 bn people burn biomass (organic matter) for cooking and heating, and when coal is included 3 bn people - half the world's population - rely on solid fuel.

It says smoke in the home is the fourth greatest cause of death and disease in the world's poorest countries, killing 1.6m people annually. Nearly a million of them are children.

It says: "In poor people's homes throughout the developing world levels of exposure to pollutants are often 100 times greater than recommended maximums.

Increasing scourge

"Illnesses caused by indoor air pollution include acute lower respiratory infection. A child is two or three times more likely to contract it if exposed to indoor air pollution.

Solid fuel can be a killer
"Women who cook on biomass are up to four times more likely to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, such as chronic bronchitis.

"Lung cancer in women in China has been directly linked to use of coal burning stoves.

"In addition there is evidence to link the pollution to asthma, tuberculosis, low birth weight and infant mortality and cataracts."

More than half the people who cook on biomass live in India and China, but in many sub-Saharan African countries more than 90% of people do so.

On current trends 200 million more people globally will rely on biomass by 2030, the International Energy Agency says.

In parts of central Asia, where gas and electricity used to be available in Soviet days, people are having to revert to biomass use.

Since 1991 the incidence of acute respiratory infection, the world's top child killer, has risen by 35% in Tajikistan, mainly because of the burning of wood indoors.

The answer is to switch to cleaner fuels, but most people at risk are too poor to afford them.

But ITDG says they can reduce their exposure to the pollution, for instance by using well-designed chimney stoves, or smoke hoods able to reduce indoor pollution by up to 80%.

Forgotten victims

It says: "For relatively little outlay, massive health benefits and savings in life could be achieved.

But smoke hoods are one cure
"The total cost of providing three billion people with access to healthy indoor air would be in the region of $2.5bn annually over the next 12 years.

"It is estimated that government spending and international development aid would be about 20% of this total, around $500m a year - less than 1% of total Western aid spending."

Cowan Coventry, ITDG's chief executive, said: "Poverty condemns more than a third of humanity to cook on a small bonfire in the middle of the home.

Political will

"It's a technology that has changed little since the Stone Age and turns homes into death traps for women and children.

"It's an international scandal that while the world spends millions of dollars combating levels of pollution in Western cities, it has neglected to tackle the death toll caused by lethal levels of smoke in the homes of the poor world."

ITDG is calling for support for the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air, backed by the World Health Organisation, World Bank, US Environmental Protection Agency and others.

It wants the United Nations to draw up a global action plan "in line with the international community's response to hunger, HIV/Aids, dirty water, poor sanitation and malaria".

 

 

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

 

LINKS TO MORE SCIENCE/NATURE STORIES

SelectFiji's 'extinct' bird flies anewThe Caloosahatchee: A rusting hulkFlare damages Mars Odyssey probe'No solution' found in more treesJapanese papers reveal huge quakeIndoor smoke 'kills millions'Hopes raised for Iraqi researchPlastic promises dense data storeRabies ravages rare wolvesHistoric maths problem 'cracked'Space station not hit by objectEurope puts France up for reactorLow-heat plastics aid recyclingAlgae threatens great coral reefUN's clarion call for great apesFears for Britain's vanishing beachesDrought warning despite downpours

SEE ALSO:
Top health risks identified
30 Oct 02 | Health
Unvented stoves 'cause lung cancer'
04 Jun 02 | Health

 

RELATED INTERNET LINKS:
Intermediate Technology Development Group
World Health Organisation
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

TOP SCIENCE/NATURE STORIES NOW
Fiji's 'extinct' bird flies anew

Caloosahatchee: A rusting hulk

Flare damages Mars probe

'No solution' found in more trees

E-mail services | Desktop ticker | News on mobiles/PDAs

Back to top ^^

News Front Page | Africa | Americas | Asia-Pacific | Europe | Middle East | South Asia
UK | Business | Entertainment | Science/Nature | Technology | Health
Have Your Say | Country Profiles | In Depth | Programmes BBCi Homepage >> | BBC Sport >> | BBC Weather >> | BBC World Service >> Help | Feedback | News sources | Privacy | About the BBC

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Nov 29 15:06:21 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills
millions'
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.160621.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills
millions'

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Indoor smoke 'kills millions'Stovers:

You probably received an incomplete message from Rogerio (as it was sent
with an attachment). Below is the version received by Ethos members.

You can also find the story at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3244214.stm

Below and at the site there are several other BBC stove/health stories.

Such stories are the way for us to get more attention paid to stoves
development and improvement.

K: It boggles me that this is still a problem when there is such a simple
solution: a chimney.

Attempting to build a better stove so that the products of combustion can be
vented inside the living space is a well meaning non-solution.

What are the reasons why chimneys are not accepted as a solution to this
problem?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

 

Rogerio - Thanks for bringing these to our attention.

 

Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: Rogerio Carneiro de Miranda
To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG ; ethos@vrac.iastate.edu
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills millions'

 

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

 

NEWS SPORT WEATHER WORLD SERVICE A-Z INDEX SEARCH

 

Low Graphics version | Change edition Feedback | Help

News Front Page

Africa
Americas
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Middle East
South Asia
UK
Business
Health
Science/Nature
Technology
Entertainment
-----------------
Have Your Say
-----------------
Country Profiles
In Depth
-----------------
Programmes
-----------------RELATED SITES

Last Updated: Friday, 28 November, 2003, 07:44 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Indoor smoke 'kills millions'

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

 

Smoke shroud for a Nepali village
Smoke from indoor cooking fires kills one person every 20
seconds in the developing world, UK campaigners say.
The Intermediate Technology Development Group says smoke in
the home kills more people than malaria does, and almost as many as unsafe
water and sanitation.

The problem affects more than two billion people who burn
wood, charcoal, vegetation and dung for heating food.

The United Nations says inefficient stoves can be as bad for
health as smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

It's a technology that has changed little since the
Stone Age and turns homes into death traps for women and children

Cowan Coventry, ITDG
ITDG says 2.4 bn people burn biomass (organic matter) for
cooking and heating, and when coal is included 3 bn people - half the
world's population - rely on solid fuel.

It says smoke in the home is the fourth greatest cause of
death and disease in the world's poorest countries, killing 1.6m people
annually. Nearly a million of them are children.

It says: "In poor people's homes throughout the developing
world levels of exposure to pollutants are often 100 times greater than
recommended maximums.

Increasing scourge

"Illnesses caused by indoor air pollution include acute lower
respiratory infection. A child is two or three times more likely to contract
it if exposed to indoor air pollution.

Solid fuel can be a killer
"Women who cook on biomass are up to four times more likely to
suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, such as chronic
bronchitis.

"Lung cancer in women in China has been directly linked to use
of coal burning stoves.

"In addition there is evidence to link the pollution to
asthma, tuberculosis, low birth weight and infant mortality and cataracts."

More than half the people who cook on biomass live in India
and China, but in many sub-Saharan African countries more than 90% of people
do so.

On current trends 200 million more people globally will rely
on biomass by 2030, the International Energy Agency says.

In parts of central Asia, where gas and electricity used to be
available in Soviet days, people are having to revert to biomass use.

Since 1991 the incidence of acute respiratory infection, the
world's top child killer, has risen by 35% in Tajikistan, mainly because of
the burning of wood indoors.

The answer is to switch to cleaner fuels, but most people at
risk are too poor to afford them.

But ITDG says they can reduce their exposure to the pollution,
for instance by using well-designed chimney stoves, or smoke hoods able to
reduce indoor pollution by up to 80%.

Forgotten victims

It says: "For relatively little outlay, massive health
benefits and savings in life could be achieved.

But smoke hoods are one cure
"The total cost of providing three billion people with access
to healthy indoor air would be in the region of $2.5bn annually over the
next 12 years.

"It is estimated that government spending and international
development aid would be about 20% of this total, around $500m a year - less
than 1% of total Western aid spending."

Cowan Coventry, ITDG's chief executive, said: "Poverty
condemns more than a third of humanity to cook on a small bonfire in the
middle of the home.

Political will

"It's a technology that has changed little since the Stone Age
and turns homes into death traps for women and children.

"It's an international scandal that while the world spends
millions of dollars combating levels of pollution in Western cities, it has
neglected to tackle the death toll caused by lethal levels of smoke in the
homes of the poor world."

ITDG is calling for support for the Partnership for Clean
Indoor Air, backed by the World Health Organisation, World Bank, US
Environmental Protection Agency and others.

It wants the United Nations to draw up a global action plan
"in line with the international community's response to hunger, HIV/Aids,
dirty water, poor sanitation and malaria".

 

 

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

 

LINKS TO MORE SCIENCE/NATURE STORIES

SelectFiji's 'extinct' bird flies anewThe
Caloosahatchee: A rusting hulkFlare damages Mars Odyssey probe'No solution'
found in more treesJapanese papers reveal huge quakeIndoor smoke 'kills
millions'Hopes raised for Iraqi researchPlastic promises dense data
storeRabies ravages rare wolvesHistoric maths problem 'cracked'Space station
not hit by objectEurope puts France up for reactorLow-heat plastics aid
recyclingAlgae threatens great coral reefUN's clarion call for great
apesFears for Britain's vanishing beachesDrought warning despite downpours

SEE ALSO:
Top health risks identified
30 Oct 02 | Health
Unvented stoves 'cause lung cancer'
04 Jun 02 | Health

 

RELATED INTERNET LINKS:
Intermediate Technology Development Group
World Health Organisation
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external
internet sites

TOP SCIENCE/NATURE STORIES NOW
Fiji's 'extinct' bird flies anew

Caloosahatchee: A rusting hulk

Flare damages Mars probe

'No solution' found in more trees

 

E-mail services | Desktop ticker | News on mobiles/PDAs

Back to top ^^

News Front Page | Africa | Americas | Asia-Pacific | Europe | Middle East
| South Asia
UK | Business | Entertainment | Science/Nature | Technology | Health
Have Your Say | Country Profiles | In Depth | Programmes BBCi Homepage >>
| BBC Sport >> | BBC Weather >> | BBC World Service >> Help | Feedback |
News sources | Privacy | About the BBC

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat Nov 29 15:22:11 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Biomass Cookstoves Weblog 11/29/2003 12:14:33 PM
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.122211.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

New on the Biomass Cooking Stoves Web Pages
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/

Richard Boyt posts a paper on Wood Pyrolysis showing three of more than 20 designs he explored in the 1970s.

Dean Still announces two upcoming conferences: ETHOS 2004 Jan 31-Feb 1 and Design Performance Guidelines Workshop Feb 2-3, 2004 in Seattle, Washington. The latter is in cooperation with the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air.

Dean also reports on the ETHOS Fall Research Seminar held Nov 10-14, 2003

Tom Miles

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Nov 29 16:04:50 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills
millions'
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.140450.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Kevin (cc stoves):

Today, you stated/asked:

> K: It boggles me that this is still a problem when there is such a simple
> solution: a chimney.
>
> Attempting to build a better stove so that the products of combustion can
be
> vented inside the living space is a well meaning non-solution.
>
> What are the reasons why chimneys are not accepted as a solution to this
> problem?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>

RWL:

1. One analysis I have seen comes from ITDG - and as I recall (hoping
others will chime in) the main reason for non acceptance of chimneys has
been cost. This is probably compounded by simple wood stove users not
being well informed on the health hazards of smoke and of the relatively
good economics of avoiding illness, etc.

2. I have seen at least one paper (now forgotten where - but see
http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/Boyt/chimney/chimney.html) about users being
able to build a quite well-functioning, almost-zero-cost chimney from
piecing used metal cans together.

3. I think ITDG concluded that a cheap preferred alternative to
chimneys was a vent hood - somewhat lighter perhaps and able to be above a
well functioning (more efficient, embedded cookpot, etc) stove of any type.

4. Of course some places prefer to cook outdoors or in separate well
vented area - and htis works against the use of chimneys as well.

5. And putting all the smoke outside is not necessarily a good idea in
a crowded urban environment - a justification for improving stove
performance regardless of using a chimney.

6. Kevin has raised an important point and I hope others will chime in.

From aes at BITSTREAM.NET Sat Nov 29 18:31:58 2003
From: aes at BITSTREAM.NET (AES)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills
millions'
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.173158.0600.AES@BITSTREAM.NET>

Many of the improved stoves I saw in Guatemala utilize both improvements:
increase efficiency of wood use and include a chimney. The inclusion of a
chimney is not as straightforward as it seems to a simple solution. In one
case, the chimney was rotted from a rain water leak at the roof...a simple
fix yet not done by the owner and the stove was then not used (except as a
table). In another example where the chimney leaked it was fixed on the
spot before major damage to the metal pipe and the owner was educated on how
to correct any leaks should they happen in the future. Without that site
visit, hard to know if the chimney would have met the same fate as in the
previous example. In yet another example, the chimney was plugged with
carbon material and not functioning, thus resulting in a smoke filled
kitchen. With each component of a stove adds one more system that adds more
complexity. While it seems that a chimney is a simple and effective
addition, that is not always the case.

Back to the basics of development work: each application should be decided
locally and with much input from the users. Including a chimney where
cooking is done outside would add cost and additional maintenance with
relatively little benefit. Rather than looking down a pipe that only views
one type of technology, having various tools to offer, from use of the sun
to cook/preheat water to fireless cooking to increasing the efficiency of
the stove (including a skirt when feasible), all will reduce the amount of
smoke created from cooking.

I realize with each type of technology adds cost and complexity but exposing
the users to each at least allows them to decide which of them they would
like to use.

I appreciate any and all further comments on this topic.

Bruce Stahlberg

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills
millions'

> Kevin (cc stoves):
>
> Today, you stated/asked:
>
> > K: It boggles me that this is still a problem when there is such a
simple
> > solution: a chimney.
> >
> > Attempting to build a better stove so that the products of combustion
can
> be
> > vented inside the living space is a well meaning non-solution.
> >
> > What are the reasons why chimneys are not accepted as a solution to this
> > problem?
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
>
> RWL:
>
> 1. One analysis I have seen comes from ITDG - and as I recall (hoping
> others will chime in) the main reason for non acceptance of chimneys has
> been cost. This is probably compounded by simple wood stove users not
> being well informed on the health hazards of smoke and of the relatively
> good economics of avoiding illness, etc.
>
> 2. I have seen at least one paper (now forgotten where - but see
> http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/Boyt/chimney/chimney.html) about users being
> able to build a quite well-functioning, almost-zero-cost chimney from
> piecing used metal cans together.
>
> 3. I think ITDG concluded that a cheap preferred alternative to
> chimneys was a vent hood - somewhat lighter perhaps and able to be above a
> well functioning (more efficient, embedded cookpot, etc) stove of any
type.
>
> 4. Of course some places prefer to cook outdoors or in separate well
> vented area - and htis works against the use of chimneys as well.
>
> 5. And putting all the smoke outside is not necessarily a good idea
in
> a crowded urban environment - a justification for improving stove
> performance regardless of using a chimney.
>
> 6. Kevin has raised an important point and I hope others will chime in.

From ronallarson at QWEST.NET Sat Nov 29 20:04:28 2003
From: ronallarson at QWEST.NET (Ron Larson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Biomass Cookstoves Weblog 11/29/2003 12:14:33 PM
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.180428.0700.RONALLARSON@QWEST.NET>

Tom and Richard -

I think Richard's 3 examples are sufficiently original and useful that
we should have the full article - all 20 ideas.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Miles <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 1:22 PM
Subject: Biomass Cookstoves Weblog 11/29/2003 12:14:33 PM

> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Poster: Tom Miles <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
> Subject: Biomass Cookstoves Weblog 11/29/2003 12:14:33 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> New on the Biomass Cooking Stoves Web Pages
> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
>
>
> Richard Boyt posts a paper on Wood Pyrolysis showing three of more than =
> 20 designs he explored in the 1970s.=20
>
> Dean Still announces two upcoming conferences: ETHOS 2004 Jan 31-Feb 1 =
> and Design Performance Guidelines Workshop Feb 2-3, 2004 in Seattle, =
> Washington. The latter is in cooperation with the Partnership for Clean =
> Indoor Air.=20
>
> Dean also reports on the ETHOS Fall Research Seminar held Nov 10-14, =
> 2003=20
>
> Tom Miles
>

From dstill at EPUD.NET Sat Nov 29 23:40:42 2003
From: dstill at EPUD.NET (Dean Still)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills
millions'
In-Reply-To: <006201c3b6b4$4470af70$ed9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.204042.0800.DSTILL@EPUD.NET>

Dear Kevin,

You ask, "What are the reasons why chimneys are not accepted as a solution
to" ...emissions from a fire hurting inhabitants?

The stove community realizes that using an inexpensive chimney helps a great
deal to reduce indoor air pollution caused by combustion. In repeated tests
at Aprovecho both a Justa and a HELPS griddle stove emitted only 3PPM of CO
in our simulated kitchen. A stove that does not leak coupled to a chimney is
a cure to IAP that should be funded. My answer to your question is that
chimneys are accepted as an obvious solution.

Now we need to get funding to put the solution into practice. ITDG estimates
that government spending and international development aid would need to be
something like $500 million per year to put a stove with chimney in houses
now unable to afford one. ITDG calls for support for the Partnership for
Clean Indoor Air. I agree! Come to the ETHOS/PCIA meetings in Seattle
January 31 to February 3 and help the EPA, World Bank, World Health
Organization, etc. to focus the energy to make this sort of solution viable!

All Best,

Dean

From lanny at ROMAN.NET Sun Nov 30 15:34:59 2003
From: lanny at ROMAN.NET (Lanny Henson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Chimney problems and solutions /Re: [STOVES] [ethos] BBC NEWS
Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills millions'
Message-ID: <SUN.30.NOV.2003.153459.0500.LANNY@ROMAN.NET>

Dear Stove Friends,
Looks like chimneys need our attention!

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Nov 30 16:04:53 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Chimney problems and solutions /Re: [STOVES] [ethos] BBC
NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills millions'
Message-ID: <SUN.30.NOV.2003.170453.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Lanny

Wow!! What a knowledgeable presentation on how to get chimneys into general
and more widespread use!! It is apparent to me that a suitable Funding
Agency should contact you, define the Scope of Work, and then give you a bag
of money to do it.

What you are proposing for chimneys would also advance the state of
utilization of exhaust hoods, the other clean air alternative.

I think you have the basis of a "win-win" solution. Now, it will be
interesting to see if any Funding Agency wants to support a solution to the
problem of inside air pollution from cooking.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lanny Henson" <lanny@ROMAN.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 4:34 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Chimney problems and solutions /Re: [STOVES] [ethos] BBC
NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills millions'

> Dear Stove Friends,
> Looks like chimneys need our attention!
>
> From your comments some of the problems with chimneys are:
> 1x- The cost of chimney parts or the parts are not available, or the lack
> of tools, equipment, methods and skills to build the parts.
> 2x- The lack of skills, tools and rigging to install the chimney parts.
> 3x- Water leaks at roof or wall penetration are a common problem.
> 4x- Safety is an issue. There is a fire hazard with chimneys. There needs
to
> be clearance from a chimney pipe to combustible materials.
> 5x- Chimney cleaning is another complaint.
> 6x- Excess draft from a too tall chimney can suck all the heat out of your
> stove this is especially bad when you are in low power and hay box modes.
> 7x- The thermal mass of the chimney and or its r factor can be a problem.
> 8x- The stack head (vent caps) are expensive to buy and can create static
> pressure that restricts the flow from the low powered flow generated by
> draft.
>
> Some thoughts on how to solve these problems:
>
> A- We need to design a simple manual machine made from common parts that
you
> would find at a scrap metal place. This device needs to do all the steps
> necessary to make and seam chimney pipe from flat sheet metal.
> B- We also will need a method to build a special tool to set the pipe
seam.
> C- We will need a simple method to build a roof/wall flashing that is leak
> proof and fire safe, built with only hand tools, no power tools.
> D- We will also need a way to prevent excess draft.
> E- We will need a chimney design that is very easy to clean.
> F- We will also need a simple vent cap that is easy to build with hand
> tools.
> G- In case there is no electricity, the chimney building methods should be
> manual not needing power tools.
> H- The methods to build the chimney making equipment should take only hand
> held power tools and a jig.
> I- We would also need a training manual that can be understood from the
> photos because of language barriers. The manual should show how to build
the
> equipment to fabricate the round chimney duct pipe and how to use the
> equipment and hand tools to design and build a complete chimney system
from
> flat sheet metal.
>
> Is there anything that I need to add to this wish lists or the problem
list?
>
> Lanny Henson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: AES <aes@BITSTREAM.NET>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 6:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke 'kills
> millions'
>
>
> > Many of the improved stoves I saw in Guatemala utilize both
improvements:
> > increase efficiency of wood use and include a chimney. The inclusion of
a
> > chimney is not as straightforward as it seems to a simple solution. In
> one
> > case, the chimney was rotted from a rain water leak at the roof...a
simple
> > fix yet not done by the owner and the stove was then not used (except as
a
> > table). In another example where the chimney leaked it was fixed on the
> > spot before major damage to the metal pipe and the owner was educated on
> how
> > to correct any leaks should they happen in the future. Without that
site
> > visit, hard to know if the chimney would have met the same fate as in
the
> > previous example. In yet another example, the chimney was plugged with
> > carbon material and not functioning, thus resulting in a smoke filled
> > kitchen. With each component of a stove adds one more system that adds
> more
> > complexity. While it seems that a chimney is a simple and effective
> > addition, that is not always the case.
> >
> > Back to the basics of development work: each application should be
> decided
> > locally and with much input from the users. Including a chimney where
> > cooking is done outside would add cost and additional maintenance with
> > relatively little benefit. Rather than looking down a pipe that only
> views
> > one type of technology, having various tools to offer, from use of the
sun
> > to cook/preheat water to fireless cooking to increasing the efficiency
of
> > the stove (including a skirt when feasible), all will reduce the amount
of
> > smoke created from cooking.
> >
> > I realize with each type of technology adds cost and complexity but
> exposing
> > the users to each at least allows them to decide which of them they
would
> > like to use.
> >
> > I appreciate any and all further comments on this topic.
> >
> > Bruce Stahlberg
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> > To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 3:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: [STOVES] [ethos] BBC NEWS Science-Nature Indoor smoke
'kills
> > millions'
> >
> >
> > > Kevin (cc stoves):
> > >
> > > Today, you stated/asked:
> > >
> > > > K: It boggles me that this is still a problem when there is such a
> > simple
> > > > solution: a chimney.
> > > >
> > > > Attempting to build a better stove so that the products of
combustion
> > can
> > > be
> > > > vented inside the living space is a well meaning non-solution.
> > > >
> > > > What are the reasons why chimneys are not accepted as a solution to
> this
> > > > problem?
> > > >
> > > > Kindest regards,
> > > >
> > > > Kevin Chisholm
> > > >
> > >
> > > RWL:
> > >
> > > 1. One analysis I have seen comes from ITDG - and as I recall
> (hoping
> > > others will chime in) the main reason for non acceptance of chimneys
has
> > > been cost. This is probably compounded by simple wood stove users
not
> > > being well informed on the health hazards of smoke and of the
relatively
> > > good economics of avoiding illness, etc.
> > >
> > > 2. I have seen at least one paper (now forgotten where - but see
> > > http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/Boyt/chimney/chimney.html) about users
> being
> > > able to build a quite well-functioning, almost-zero-cost chimney from
> > > piecing used metal cans together.
> > >
> > > 3. I think ITDG concluded that a cheap preferred alternative to
> > > chimneys was a vent hood - somewhat lighter perhaps and able to be
above
> a
> > > well functioning (more efficient, embedded cookpot, etc) stove of any
> > type.
> > >
> > > 4. Of course some places prefer to cook outdoors or in separate
well
> > > vented area - and htis works against the use of chimneys as well.
> > >
> > > 5. And putting all the smoke outside is not necessarily a good
idea
> > in
> > > a crowded urban environment - a justification for improving stove
> > > performance regardless of using a chimney.
> > >
> > > 6. Kevin has raised an important point and I hope others will chime
> in.
> >
> >

From cree at DOWCO.COM Sun Nov 30 16:59:02 2003
From: cree at DOWCO.COM (john olsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:30:42 2004
Subject: Perhaps list members could read this.
Message-ID: <SUN.30.NOV.2003.135902.0800.CREE@DOWCO.COM>

copy from ;
http://www.itdg.org
Smoke - the killer in the kitchen
Smoke in the home from cooking on wood, dung and crop waste kills nearly one
million children a year.
The total annual death toll is 1.6 million - a life lost every 20 seconds.
It is a larger killer than malaria and is the fourth greatest risk to death
and disease in the world's poorest countries. Despite this, little has been
done to tackle this chronic crisis.

In its report, Smoke: the Killer in the Kitchen, ITDG is calling for global
action to save the lives of 1.6 million men, women and children lost each
year to lethal levels of household smoke.

a.. Summary of the report
b.. Read the report online
c.. Download the report
d.. Buy a copy from ITDG Publishing
e.. Find out more: key questions and answers

John Olsen
Heatlog Industries Inc / Cree Industries