[Stoves] Prioritizing your worry list

[Jeff Davis]

Dear Kevin,

A lot of cannon balls have been lobed your direction. It would be an honor
to help bail.


Dear Tom^2, Richard and All,

Kevin wants to explore dung synergies by removing what’s not needed
(that’s a good thing) and adding other components to the mix (that’s a
good thing):

ADDING: By finding other fuels to mix with dung Kevin will, or could,
enhance the combustion properties of dung and increase the quantity of his
fuel lot. Lets say that he mixes dung with waste sawdust, or what ever, he
now has more fuel. Do we not need more fuel?

REMOVING: If Kevin removes nutrients from the dung and uses this off
product for other uses, we all win. With this he can grow more fuel or
food. Do we not need more fuel and food?


The time has come for the blended dung fireball.

Jeff



>> Dear All:
>>
>> There may be dioxins in dung smoke, but there are lots of other things
>> not to breathe too.
>
> It would appear that there is a reasonable expectation that the possible
> hazard of dioxins from dung fuels can be readily corrected by treatment
> prior to burning. It may also be that removing the dioxin forming
> constituents from dung would change dung properties in a way such that
> improved combustion would result, even without making other system
> changes.
>>
>> Dung is a major fuel in India.  If you removed it the results would be
>> immeasurably worse than the possible specific damage from dioxin.
>
> It is not a question of removing it as a fuel, but rather, pre-processing
> it, to make it more "user friendly." Pre-processing dung may result in a
> "doubled benefit" to India:
> 1: Nutrients can be saved in their most available form, and they can be
> returned to the soil directly.
> 2: The dioxin hazard can be eliminated, or at least reduced in a major
> way.
>>
>> We are running out of fuel, and that should be our biggest worry.
>> Finding replacements should be our highest priority.  If the
>> replacements have secondary flaws we can fix them later.
>
> Pre-treatment to eliminate (or significantly reduce) the dioxin hazard
> should result in a superior "dung sourced" fuel.
>>
>> Clean, efficient  combustion fixes most emission problems.
>
> Quite true. However, untold millions of dollars have been spent on
> Municipal
> Solid Waste Incinerators in an attempt to control dioxin emissions with
> very
> little success for the Incinerator Industry. It would appear unlikely that
> dioxin emissions from dung fires could be reduced to acceptable levels in
> small scale combustion systems with combustion improvements alone.
>
>  "The best way to cure a problem is to eliminate its occurence in the
> first
> place."
>
> I would suggest that the easiest way to reduce dioxin emissions from dung
> fuels would be to pre-process the dung.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
>
>


-- 
Jeff Davis

Some where 20 miles south of Lake Erie, USA