[Stoves] Safety of stoves and conflicts of interests

Sat Sep 1 10:03:12 EDT 2007

Dear Crispin,

Thanks for that great information.  Because of the new Subject line, I will
leave your message below for others to read.

My Lily stove will not meet those requirements as currently 
constructed.  I will
not pursue its sale in South Africa for the time being.

While safety is so important, I am somewhat dismayed at the fullness of
regulations of a manufactured product while a society continues to allow
extensive use of unsafe practices (like the "embuela" -- a coal-burning
open-bucket-heater -- that causes clouds of air pollution in the 
townships). The people have the freedom to make for themselves 
something that is very
unsafe for the person/family/community, but people are unable to buy a
affordable manufactured product because of the regulations making it
unavailable.

For example, the Trangia alcohol stove (for campers) is sold worldwide, but
would not meet the listed requirements (even greater risk of spilling than the
self-pressurized alcohol stoves).  And if the fuel container of the CleanCook
stove is turned completely upside down for a while, it too will leak out fuel.

People who live in poverty confront many extra risks that are far greater than
the risks from a reasonable cookstove that is a great improvement but 
might not
meet some set of requirements.  South Africa (and many other countries) is a
mixture of rich and poor.  The "haves" might seek the regulations that 
give the
appearance of the First World countries, while the "have-nots" tend to 
seek any
improvements they can find.  It is good for leaders to protect their people,
but it is possible to carry that protection too far and actually hinder 
some of
their people.

This problem will not be resolved at this Listserv, but comments pro and con
could be enlightening.

Paul
-- 
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Geography professor - Emeritus
Telephone:  USA-309-452-7072 (residence and office)
Internet site:  www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
For my gasifier stoves info, go to:
http://bioenergylists.org/contributors#Paul_Anderson

Quoting Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com>:

> Dear Paul
>
> I have only time for addressing the temperature of the fuel issues as it
> informs a lot of what else is going to happen after that.
>
> South Africa, unique in the position of having enforced laws regarding the
> safety and performance of non-pressure paraffin stoves (with the pressure
> regulations coming momentarily) is being watched by other countries as a
> leader in the creation of a safer environment.  This looking for a market
> for what are essentially unsafe stoves in other countries will be an
> activity with diminishing returns.
>
> The basis for the regulations are (some of them)
>
> You can't have the fuel in the tank heated above its flash point within one
> hour of lighting the stove (the can stove relies on exactly this happening).
> You can't have any fuel leaks if it tips over, or upside down even if it
> thumps to the floor from a counter.
> It must self-extinguish within 1 minute if tipped over, and can't emit
> flames from the stove during that minute (it can have a flame that is dying
> inside a body/shell).
> If it is pressurized, it must have some system to manually shut off the flow
> of fuel to the burner, and to depressurize the tank within 6 seconds (these
> can be separate controls).
> It must tip back to vertical if tilted 20 degrees and released (with a pot
> on or off is not clear).
> It must generate at least 1 Kw of heat (a rule I happen not to favour
> because there are some very small heat applications)
> The CO/CO2 ratio must be less than 0.02 (in line with international
> standards)
> Nothing you have to touch to operate the stove can be hotter than 40 C at
> any time.
> It must not be able to be refilled when it is burning (unless the tank is
> not part of the stove i.e. LPG or REDI or piped fuel)
>
> Those are the important ones.
>
> They are reasonable and create a far safer environment.  In my view a
> partially sealed (leaky) can of fuel that evaporates from the main reservoir
> in order to produce the flame would not be allowed because of the danger to
> a child if they pulled it over onto their blanket. Gelling the fuel provides
> some advantages regarding leaks and shutting off because at least the fuel
> is not flowing around.  Some gels, however, are very watery and flow easily
> so a regulation may come in specifying a minimum viscosity for ethanol gels.
>
> I mentioned before the fraud committed by falsifying performance and heat
> content reports comparing ethanol and paraffin.  The extraordinary claims to
> be 'burning water' in the ethanol fall into the same category as you
> correctly point out (the energy lost boiling it etc). Falsification of test
> data, swapping pages from different reports and stapling them together
> without page numbers, claiming heat content per liter of gel using HHV heat
> per kilo figures.... I am seeing it all!
>
> You might call Teri Kruger, Dr Lloyd and I 'hanging judges' but someone as
> to clean up this town!
>
> Something would not be allowed but which is difficult to prevent is the
> practice in India of using a glass tumbler partially filled with paraffin +
> a cloth wick as a simple paraffin lamp.  Tipping one over has predictable
> and disastrous results.
>
> Regards
> 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
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.