[Stoves] Terra preta is good for you
naomi luckett
naomiluckett at gmail.com
Thu Oct 11 01:09:49 EDT 2007
Dear Minh,
Again I would urge people to go to the TP discussion site where you
will...amongst the bickering...see many people doing trials and research
into the effectivity of biochar and ...more contentious, how to put the
concept into practice, without encouraging folk to chop down trees and open
burn...and further contribute to climate change!
I would be very interested in any references that you have to research you
speak of in India and Cambodia, and what sort of work, trials, studies have
been conducted over there as I am not aware of any as yet?
I also would like to mention to the stove list that I am working with a
group of people, developing and now distributing a kids educational
kit...with learning strands about global warming, climate change, the carbon
cycle and greenhouse effect, the use of biochar, carbon sequestration,
research and development and science. The kit is a small trial that kids can
do with 6 pots and some seeds and some biochar...made from rice husk (waste
biomass/renewable stream) in a specific pyrolysis unit at a specific
temperature!
If anyone is interested they may email me, or check out the website...
http://bionecho.org/charcoalab/index.php
"Naku iti noa" from New Zealand
Naomi
On 10/11/07, Minh Cuong LE QUAN (Mr) <mclequan at cfsp.org.kh> wrote:
>
> Dear char lovers,
>
> Provided the biomass comes from a renewable source, and this use does not
> compete fiercely with others, then yes definitely, terra preta is worth
> developing to improve food security.
>
> People need food in the stove, don't they?
> Eco-Agriculture people have proven it in many places (at least in India,
> Brazil and Cambodia), it is an effective input to improve soils in the
> tropics. This increases productivity in harmony with nature.
> There are billions of ha of wastelands and deserts to be restored: it is
> one
> of the tools to re-green the Earth.
>
> If gasifiers generate char as a by-product, we can either feed a char
> briquette production, or look at options for terra preta.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Minh
>
>
> ------------
> Minh Cuong LE QUAN
> Climate Change Unit
> GERES, 422 st 310 (corner 95) PO Box 2528, Phnom Penh 3
> tel +855 23 986891 fax +855 23 221314 www.geres.eu
> Travel and protect the climate with www.co2solidaire.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of
> stoves-request at listserv.repp.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:25 AM
> To: stoves at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: Stoves Digest, Vol 16, Issue 14
>
> Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
> stoves at listserv.repp.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> stoves-request at listserv.repp.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> stoves-owner at listserv.repp.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Terra preta. was Re: [Fwd: Re: Stoves in China] (frank)
> 2. Re: [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison of the Global-Warming
> Potential of Six Categories of Biomass Cooking Stoves (frank)
> 3. Re: [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison of theGlobal-Warming
> Potential of Six Categories of Biomass Cooking Stoves (Tom Miles)
> 4. Re: [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison oftheGlobal-Warming
> Potential of Six Categories of BiomassCooking Stoves (Laurie
> Iaccino)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:07:20 -0700
> From: frank <frank at compostlab.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Terra preta. was Re: [Fwd: Re: Stoves in
> China]
> To: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <470CF8B8.4040509 at compostlab.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dear Paul, Jeff and stovers,
>
> I agree that compost is only good for a year or two and char will help
> improve the texture of poor soils and last for a long time. Char will
> also contain a small amount of nutrients (compared to compost). It just
> seems so much went into producing the char and it is so energy dense its
> value is better used elsewhere. So its just weighing the benefits and
> choosing the use.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
> Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> > Quoting frank <frank at compostlab.com>:
> >
> >> Stovers
> >> I suggest there may be much better use for charcoal than returning it
> to
> >> the forest. It does contain some nutrients like potassium, phosphorus,
> >> calcium etc but there are better ways to add these (compost) and it may
> >> help improve the structure of a poor soil. I don't see the carbon being
> >> available to the plants as I have found it in thousand year old
> >> archeology sites.
> >
> >
> > Frank, the carbon (char) in terra preta old soils is not to go into
> > the plants,
> > but to help the soil be better for the plants. Carbon in compost with
> > be lost,
> > but the char is a nearly permanent improvement. Especially in the humid
> > tropics, the compost (incl leaf litter) is rapidly decomposed and/or
> > leached.
> >
> > I suspect that the nutrients (P, K, Ca, etc) in the ash do become
> > available to
> > the plants.
> >
> > This is especially for tropical soils. And maybe mid-latitude sandy
> > soils?? Nothing against composting. But char into the weak soils is
> > ANOTHER way of
> > improving soils, especially in the tropics.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > I would think mixing it in with small fuel that is
> >
> >> densified may be a better use.
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> Jeff Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>> Crispin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> As is obvious, if a person goes back into the forest to cut more
> wood,
> >>>> then there is a problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> If I have a gasifier that requires 2 kg of wood each day, making 1
> >>>> kg of
> >>>> charcoal is not helping the forest re-grow.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The theory is that one would return the charcoal back to the forest.
> >>>
> >>> As a side note; truckers have a term for finding something to haul
> >>> on the
> >>> empty leg of their trip but the term escapes me at present.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Frank Shields
> >> Soil Control Lab
> >> 42 Hangar way
> >> Watsonville, CA 95076
> >> (831) 724-5422 tel
> >> (831) 724-3188 fax
> >> frank at compostlab.com
> >> www.compostlab.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> >> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> >> http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Frank Shields
> Soil Control Lab
> 42 Hangar way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> (831) 724-5422 tel
> (831) 724-3188 fax
> frank at compostlab.com
> www.compostlab.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:57:09 -0700
> From: frank <frank at compostlab.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison of the
> Global-Warming Potential of Six Categories of Biomass Cooking
> Stoves
> To: crispin at newdawn.sz, Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <470D0465.9000204 at compostlab.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Crispin and Stovers,
>
> I agree with the procedure Aprovecho is using for testing stove design,
> heat transfer, air requirements etc. When doing any research everything
> needs to be the same (including fuel) - except for the one variable
> that is being tested. The data of lids on pots, space around pots,
> location of pots in regard to the flame how having a pot on the stove
> effects emissions etc. all need be tested using the same fuel. Dried
> sticks all the same size and placed the same is the way as done at
> Aprovecho is also how I would do it. Aprovecho is testing stove design
> and heat transfer and the data produced is important for making the
> perfect stove. This work needs to be continued as-is. I suspect the
> findings can be used for most any heat source.
>
> In another section of the Aprovecho Lab and elsewhere there could be
> other research going on that test the different heat sources (fuels) and
> the requirement to get even pyrolysis, emissions suitable for clean
> combustion, continued combustion, with the maximum amount of heat
> produced from the fuel. This being very separate from the stove heat
> transfer experiments.
>
> Then the findings from the heat source is connected with the findings
> from the heat transfer experiments to make the perfect stove for the
> fuel chosen.
>
> So testing the heat source is just the other half of what needs be done
> IMO.
>
> Regards
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> >Dear Friends
> >
> >Given the stress caused by the disagreements around testing methods I
> agree
> >that it would be good to push forward the agenda proposed early this year
> at
> >the ETHOS conference.
> >
> >The main issues have not been debated in terms of what they are. Here
> are
> >five:
> >
> >Issue 1. The fuel is not representative of field conditions. It is
> >extremely dry and does not burn like regular fuel. There seems to be no
> >reason given by Aprovecho for using fuel this dry. No one presents
> >justifications for it. Yet over the strenuous objections of people
> >including myself, tests that purport to 'compare' stoves are still being
> >made and the results published, at least on the internet, sometimes in
> >documentary form.
> >
> >Why does it matter?
> >The fuel used in these tests cannot be used to establish performance
> >benchmarks.
> >
> >Stoves that burn sticks on the end, like the Rocket Stove, perform
> >extremely well using very dry fuel. Other stoves including the Vesto,
> Juntos
> >gasifiers, semi-gasifiers and any stove with a significant preheating of
> air
> >do not do well because the fuel burns far too quickly, often running out
> of
> >air, producing high levels of CO and particulates. The Rocket Stove is
> >optimised to burn that fuel; the stoves it is compared with are not.
> >
> >Issue 2. The use of lids on pots for stove tests. This has been
> >discussed many times. Stoves that are designed to operate at a certain
> >power level are apparently tested with no lids on the pots, forcing the
> >operator to run the stove above its design power output in order to boil
> the
> >water in a reasonable time. This affects emissions. During simmering,
> more
> >fuel than normal is required to maintain the water temperature, even
> though
> >the stove may be optimised to simmer at a very low power level. The
> Rocket
> >Stove is optimised to operate a power level to boil pots without lids -
> >years of research reports show this. While some concession was made this
> >year with regard to lids, it is not yet clear to me that the tests
> recently
> >published were done according to the stove design parameters, or
> according
> >to the UCB-WBT.
> >
> >Why does it matter?
> >Unrepresentative tests give unrepresentative results. Very important
> fund
> >decisions are made on the basis of test results, such as the level of CO2
> >offset funding a stove type is going to receive. If the test is
> >unrealistic, the funder and manufacturer are being compromised.
> >
> >Issue 3. Fuel heat rating. There is a portion of the WBT that
> >calculates the heat yielded during a test. This means that taking into
> >consideration the heat in dry fuel, the moisture content of that fuel and
> >the char remaining, an amount of heat offered to the pot is calculated.
> The
> >UCB-WBT method is very accurate for only one species of wood and one
> >charcoal type, but quite inaccurate for different wood species, different
> >fuels, high moisture levels and different charcoal heat contents.
> >
> >Why does it matter?
> >Tests done at different locations are difficult to compare with the ones
> >done at Aprovecho unless the actual lab data is made available so the
> tests
> >can be recalculated. This data, in general, has not been made available
> by
> >Aprovecho so the tests cannot be re-evaluated, nor can the claims made
> for
> >comparative efficiency or fuel consumption be verified. The results from
> >several months of testing different fuel moisture levels are not rendered
> >acceptable because so much money and effort was put into them. They
> become
> >acceptable when the protocol is realistic and the calculations made as
> >accurately as possible.
> >
> >Issue 4. Thermal efficiency calculation method. The formula used
> to
> >calculate the efficiency of a stove involves comparing the heat offered
> to
> >the pot with the heat absorbed by the pot. The one used in the UCB-WBT
> is
> >not accurate. There are errors introduced by the lack of lids: no
> account
> >is taken of radiation from the hot upper water surface and the excessive
> >evaporation with no lid. The bigger error is the one that starts in the
> >fuel heat rating and is then transferred to the efficiency
> calculation. As
> >the amount of charcoal remaining increases, as the heat content of the
> fuel
> >decreases and as the moisture content of the fuel rises, the error gets
> >larger and larger. For gasifiers and users of low heat content fuels,
> the
> >error can be well over 100%. By this I mean that the calculated heat
> >released can be double the actual value, giving the impression that the
> >thermal efficiency of the stove is only 1/2 what it really is. In other
> >cases, the calculated value is very accurate. Such calculation errors
> >render meaningless comparisons made between stoves using wood of
> different
> >species and moisture contents and, for example, rice hulls, as has been
> done
> >with the latest set of published tests.
> >
> >The forthcoming test results for higher levels of fuel moisture mentioned
> by
> >Dean are probably going to be presented within the UCB-WBT framework. If
> >so, the thermal efficiency calculations and specific fuel consumption
> >figures are invalid because of deficiencies in the methodology and
> formulae.
> >The only immediate solution would be that the raw data for the tests be
> >published so that the real performance can be calculated using various
> other
> >methods, though that would still not solve the fuel moisture problem.
> >
> >Why does it matter?
> >The UCB-WBT in its present form cannot be used to establish realistic
> >performance benchmarks.
> >
> >Issue 5. Variable and incompetent operation of stoves being tested.
> >It is always a problem to get people who do not know how to use a stove
> >really well to test it. The problem will not easily go away. The best
> >answer I have seen is for developers to run their own stoves using fuel
> of
> >their choice. To do that at a central facility is very
> expensive. Testing
> >a different places in the world and comparing notes requires an agreed
> >protocol.
> >
> >I have suffered many times with products (other than stoves) being badly
> run
> >by 'independent' testers so the problem is not unique to stoves. In the
> >case of the recent rice hull stove evaluation, the tester ran out of fuel
> >part way through the test, yet reports the result which a reader must
> assume
> >as being representative of the stove's performance. This is not
> reasonable.
> >Previous tests showed the CO emission to be 1/7 of this test. This is
> >inconsistent and frankly, unbelievable.
> >
> >Why does it matter?
> >It is dangerous because unfair accusations of bias can emerge if a stove
> is
> >underperforming at Aprovecho when being tested alongside other expertly
> run
> >stoves and the comparative results published as representative of the
> stoves
> >performance in general.
> >
> >Improving the situation:
> >A very large amount of goodwill have been shown to the people and
> >institution of Aprovecho by many skilled and experienced people. No one
> will
> >benefit from the publication of results that are correctly critiqued
> >followed by more of the same. A year ago these same five issues came up
> at
> >a meeting in Bonn on the development of stove performance benchmarks. A
> year
> >later the issues are largely unaddressed, with quite serious consequences
> >for one of the stoves recently tested, the dissemination of which is
> >dependant on funding determined by the CO2 and GHG mitigation value.
> Suppose
> >these tests are believed?
> >
> >Failure to address these five fundamental scientific issues, now, at
> >Aprovecho, can only lead to further complications and disaffection in the
> >stove developers community. If they are not addressed, there is a real
> >danger that their results will be increasingly ignored.
> >
> >A lot of talented people are willing to contribute to this process. We
> must
> >enhance the store of goodwill that already exists between this eminent
> group
> >of peers and deliver superior services to the world.
> >
> >Sincerely
> >Crispin
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Stoves mailing list
> >Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> >http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> >http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Frank Shields
> Soil Control Lab
> 42 Hangar way
> Watsonville, CA 95076
> (831) 724-5422 tel
> (831) 724-3188 fax
> frank at compostlab.com
> www.compostlab.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:04:25 -0700
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison of
> theGlobal-Warming Potential of Six Categories of Biomass
> Cooking
> Stoves
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at listserv.repp.org>, <crispin at newdawn.sz>
> Message-ID: <010d01c80b5f$9d563390$d8029ab0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Roger,
>
> A fundamental question is whether there is funding available for a
> laboratory to set up and do independent testing. Much of Apro's work has
> been voluntary and on the fly worked into with various projects. As the
> process becomes more formal the costs increase. It would be appropriate to
> get the labs that have developed heating stoves (Ottawa, EPA, etc.) to do
> cooking stoves testing.
>
> Tom
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:stoves-
> > bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Roger Samson
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:08 AM
> > To: crispin at newdawn.sz; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison of theGlobal-
> > Warming Potential of Six Categories of Biomass Cooking Stoves
> >
> >
> > Tom and all
> >
> > Here is some feedback we developed internally within our organization
> > regarding mainly the WBT protocol.
> >
> > 1. The comparative testing of stoves should be performed by a third
> > party independent from stove developers whose stove(s) are being
> > tested.
> >
> > 2. The fuel source needs to be representative of those which are
> > used
> > in real world situations. The use of kiln dried douglas fir from a saw
> > mill
> > (essentially dry kindling -1cm x 2cm machined pieces) potentially has
> > several different characteristics than real world wood (it may burn
> > cleaner
> > than wet wood commonly used in the tropics, it may start faster than
> > wet
> > wood, it may burn cleaner than wood branches with a high bark content
> > as
> > there are less resins and kindling has a surface conducive to catching
> > fire,
> > it also is small diameter which may provide lower emissions than large
> > diameter wood. It may be we should use something like acacia branches
> > as the
> > reference wood. Best to use real world wood for testing stoves unless
> > the
> > stove has a specific fuel requirement. I don't see why we are trying to
> > prove dry kindling is the wrong fuel to use when real wood branches are
> > available for use.
> >
> > 3. A level playing field needs to be established with regard to
> > stove
> > operational experience. We do not necessarily believe it is best if
> > the
> > stove is operated by the developer. Obviously the stove being tested by
> > an
> > agency that developed it will have the ability to "tweek" its operation
> > to
> > obtain the best results. Stoves for which there is less familiarity or
> > no
> > familiarity with cooking are set at a disadvantage if they are included
> > in
> > such a trial. The least bias would be to do the tests in a developing
> > country like India, give the stove and fuel source to 3 people (likely
> > women) for 3 months, then bring each in and let them cook. That way you
> > have
> > 3 operators with experience as your 3 replications and less impact from
> > any
> > one good or poor operator which would skew results.
> >
> > 4. Cooking tests should be performed when testing is done with lids
> > off the pots it rewards stoves with high heat outputs and high turndown
> > ratios. We should be encouraging more efficient cooking practices with
> > lids
> > covered.
> >
> >
> > 5. All phases of stove testing should be included, including the hot
> > start phase. Wood stoves are known to have high emissions during start
> > up,
> > but it was omitted during the GWP stove test. Start up fuels should be
> > used
> > according to the stove developers protocol for stove use.
> >
> > Some other comments related to the GWP report:
> >
> > Our Mayon Turbo Rice hull stove had been tested previously on two
> > occasions
> >
> > http://www.bioenergylists.org/en/apromayon05
> >
> > and found carbon monoxide contents to be similar to 4 improved wood
> > stoves
> > and was superior to the 4 improved wood stoves in terms of reducing
> > particulate (see this link). There was a 20% reduction in CO versus the
> > 3
> > stone fire and about the same CO as the improved wood stoves in the
> > reports
> > above. There was a 70% on particulates versus the 3 stone fire which
> > was
> > well above the average of the 4 improved wood stoves. We were
> > surprised now
> > to see this 2007 study published given the results conflicted so much
> > with
> > the previous 2005 test results. We would like to get some explanation
> > of why
> > these replicated tests led by the same agency provided such different
> > results. Normally if results are conflicting you would need to provide
> > some
> > reason why before publicly circulating them or repeat the tests.
> >
> > The total global warming potential chart (pg 17) in the article
> > "Laboratory
> > Comparison of the Global-Warming Potential of Six Categories of Biomass
> > Cooking Stoves" is somewhat misleading as the lead chart to identify
> > GWP of
> > stoves. While it is true many countries currently have unsustainably
> > harvested wood fuel resources it is not 100% of the supply. Perhaps 5-
> > 10% of
> > some countries wood supply is being overharvested. Why not just present
> > the
> > kyoto monitored gases-n20 and ch4)) and the total direct and indirect
> > emissions(particulates, etc) in another chart and if you like present
> > another chart assuming 5 or 10% of the biomass is unsustainable and
> > show a
> > partial accounting of the C02 included.
> >
> > Our basic feeling is that we need the lead testing to be done by
> > independent
> > stove testing agencies that are run by scientists preferably in a
> > developing
> > countries (like India and China) as this would be closer to fuels and
> > users
> > and reduce testing costs for donor agencies. Surely if China has a
> > space
> > program and India is a world leader in computers these countries have
> > the
> > capability to develop effective cooking stoves and fuel trials. This
> > would
> > be much more "development friendly" approach than having testing led by
> > scientists in a developed country. Its time the scientists in
> > industrialized
> > countries should be providing capacity building in the south but not
> > lead
> > the effort on stoves testing.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Roger Samson
> >
> > Executive Director
> >
> > REAP-Canada
> >
> > Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13
> >
> > Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
> >
> > T: (514) 398-7743
> >
> > T: (514) 398-7972
> >
> > E: rsamson at reap-canada.com
> >
> > W: www.reap-canada.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:25:02 -0700
> From: "Laurie Iaccino" <laurieiaccino at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison
> oftheGlobal-Warming Potential of Six Categories of
> BiomassCooking
> Stoves
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <013901c80b73$4189beb0$c49d3c10$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> dear dedicated stovers, testers, and builders,
>
> i write this with the utmost respect for all of you and what you do. so,
> first a big THANK YOU is in order. i read most of what you all report on
> and
> do try to understand even some of the most difficult to grasp points.,
> ie.,
> dry fuel equivalent, cross sectional gepometry, flame velocity, specialty
> fuels, charcoal development, and all in regards to global warming....now
> the
> discussion is about truly accurate and applicable laboratory testing of
> fuels.
>
> well, i think all of this is great. (truly.) and, on top of it, we can
> justify each day our jobs, our labs, and/or our commitments and spin
> ourselves around in circles making everything as exact as possible, with a
> goal or goals in mind that in my opinion that while noble, are not
> realistic. in my admittedly very limited experience in the "field", mind
> you, minus NGOS, and experts, you work with what you have, whom you have,
> and you may not get the perfect result, however there is usually an
> improvement, even if it's as simple as reduced smoke in the
> structure. (and
> speaking of pots, you would not believe the pots they use! thin, banged
> up,
> burned up and from what i saw, rarely replaced. and hardly reproducible!
> and, women the world over know when to use a lid!) however, in general,
> if
> you teach, respect the opinions of the residents, ie., include them; you
> also get folks who can critically think, actually do use their stoves,
> even
> with their pots, and offer suggestions and changes, not to mention the
> most
> important point of spreading the word that change is possible and
> affordable. and if you want to send for what's missing, build a factory,
> or
> have some NGO come up with a way to have what would make it perfect, my
> opinion is that many of these methods are simply not sustainable. they
> cost
> too much, NGO's can't be everywhere, they do not always utilize or even
> take into account what the people have to offer, ie., the people we are
> trying to help, nor do all communities want and/or trust them. yes, these
> are all asides to how far we want to take the testing. the bottom line is
> in the field one has to be flexible and work with what you have, ie.,
> stove
> materials, fuel, cooking pots, manpower, money, and all of this within the
> day to day life/ culture/ traditions of the people we are trying to help,
> juxtaposed against all of our first-world testing and development.
>
> i do not mean to suggest to forget the research and development. i just
> mean to suggest perhaps we can't see the forest for the trees, and in this
> work one has to certainly strive for the best, but to not disregard what
> is
> achievable as not being good enough. yes, all needs to be evaluated but
> i'm
> not sure we can expect to actually apply it straight across to the
> communties we are trying to help.
>
> and finally, my partner and i are registered to attend the ETHOS
> conference
> in Kirkland. i look forward to it.
>
> thank you again for all you do,
>
> Laurie Iaccino, R.N.
>
> rom: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at listserv.repp.org>,<crispin at newdawn.sz>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison
> oftheGlobal-Warming
> Potential of Six Categories of BiomassCooking Stoves
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:04:25 -0700
> >Roger,
> >
> >A fundamental question is whether there is funding available for a
> >laboratory to set up and do independent testing. Much of Apro's work has
> >been voluntary and on the fly worked into with various projects. As the
> >process becomes more formal the costs increase. It would be appropriate
> to
> >get the labs that have developed heating stoves (Ottawa, EPA, etc.) to do
> >cooking stoves testing.
> >
> >Tom
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
>
> End of Stoves Digest, Vol 16, Issue 14
> **************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list