[Stoves] The other side of airpollution

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Andrew
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "AJH" <list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] The other side of airpollution


> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:04:05 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>>1: It is a fact that a stove with a chimney can be made to work more
>>efficicently than a stove that does not have a chimney.
>
> For what definitions of efficiency? From an energy conversion
> standpoint I actually think you are wrong, simply because the chimney
> is not a good "heat engine" for creating the draught necessary to
> work. It may be the most cost effective though.

The chimney per se is probably quite inefficient as a heat engine. However, 
I would suggest that the improved combustion resulting from the induced 
draft would result in significant fuel savings, and reduced wastage of fuel 
through either uncombusted fuel gases, or excess air losses. Obviously, a 
poorly designed or operated stove system can negate these potential 
advantages.
>>
>>2: It is a fact that exhaust hoods and chimneys can reduce the hazards of
>>IAP by 1 or more orders of magnitude, or perhaps even eliminate it 
>>entirely.
>
> This looks more reasonable but could well be challenged by a clean
> open flued device, such as we have seen good developments of, over the
> last year.

While there could very well be significant improvements in "open flued, 
solid fueled, stove systems", do you think they can be improved to the 
degree that they would be approved for inside venting in Canada, the US, or 
England?

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
> Andrew Heggie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://www.bioenergylists.org
>