Hi Ron
See replies below
Roger:
Very nice job on reporting the evolution of the No-Flay. I see some very
clever design features there - and a very nice cost ($10). I look forward to
hearing of your upcoming more detailed test results.
Some nit picking questions:
1. You are recommending a 1.5 cm gap from outer unfired wall to pot. I
think Dean Still would recommend maybe half that. Any specific reason for 1.5
cm?
We found 1.5 cm worked nicely with the typical 34 cm (14”) large pots (cooking
for 14 in the household on average). The gap has to be sized to the combustion
air flow you require. A bigger heat demand requires a bigger gap. Also from a
practical standpoint a 1.5 cm was a gap the masons could work with, a smaller
gap would cause installation issues.
2. How do you support the pot above the three fired brick stack? Spacing
also 1.5 cm? Or more?
Yes we just cut the aluminum pot legs with a hacksaw to leave about a 1.5-2cm
stub on the legs
3. What are the range of pot diameters you can accommodate? Has any
family bought 2 for different pot sizes for types of food?
Our experience to date is the stove can accommodate pots from about 30 cm -60cm
but we haven’t gone bigger yet. In Senegal and Gambia most users want a 5
brick layer high stove for rice and millet cooking and a 4 brick layer high
sauce pan stove. At McGill University a student is working to develop a bigger
prototype for parboiling rice.
4. I can understand the recommendation for outside cooking, but also see
the no-flay as working indoors for some cultures. One objection I had once was
taking up space. Any use of your no-flays indoors? The outdoor use any
problem with rainfall on the unfired bricks?
We started installing indoors and it was the communities that decided to build
the stove outdoors once they realized they could cook outdoors under windy
conditions with the double wall design. They never could do that before safely
or efficiently with a 3 stone fire. To protect from rain most just put up a
slanted sheet of tin and two wooden supports against an existing kitchen wall.
5. I am unaware of any other stove with internal support using the fired
bricks. Nice concept. I like there are three, not four inside. The 20 cm
height for three could be varied a little for different size pots and flames?
The fired bricks seem to cost 10 cents each, and the unfired at a little less
than half that. Could the fired bricks be supplied in rounded arc shapes
similarly? (Trying to move towards a TLUD version of same - needing a total
enclosure.)
We use 4 centre bricks on the bigger stoves in a diamond like pattern to
support bigger pots. The 20 cm height is really a function of the brick
thickness to save on materials. We could go higher, but it’s also the height
they are used to cooking at so very user friendly. We went with smooth sided
bricks because they are easier to pack and less breakage in transport.
6. A TLUD all-clay, local construction version (to obtain char) seems
doable - but would need drop down (removable) metal fuel containers. I hope
some reader can report they tried it. Maybe later I will. Getting rid of
metal is great. I think with wider fired bricks you might not need any outer
layer, although that does provide some nice preheating.
Paul Anderson and I discussed this as a hybrid stove concept in Seattle, you
use the TLUD insert and place it inside the fired bricks when you have the TLUD
fuel and remove it and cook with wood when you don’t.
7. Is it necessary to sell this at $5? I would think your fuel savings
could easily justify the full $10 cost.
Well it’s a new stove and this area is very poor in west africa. So if you
can’t install stoves unless you discount it to launch it, you have to
subsidize. Hopefully they will build it themselves locally and become wealthy
enough to be able to afford to buy it without subsidy in the future.
8. Your cost pie-chart showed a “micro” transport cost. What is that?
That’s brick redistribution costs in the community. So we bring bricks by truck
or tractor wagon to a community but you have to donkey cart it to each
individual household so that’s our “micro” transport cost.
Again thanks for reporting on some very nice approaches. Best of luck on
future sales.
THANKS!
Ron
From: Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>
To: Roger Samson <[email protected]>; Discussion of biomass
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 3:10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] NY Times article on what fuel poor need.
Roger:
Very nice job on reporting the evolution of the No-Flay. I see some very
clever design features there - and a very nice cost ($10). I look forward to
hearing of your upcoming more detailed test results.
Some nit picking questions:
1. You are recommending a 1.5 cm gap from outer unfired wall to pot. I
think Dean Still would recommend maybe half that. Any specific reason for 1.5
cm?
2. How do you support the pot above the three fired brick stack? Spacing
also 1.5 cm? Or more?
3. What are the range of pot diameters you can accommodate? Has any
family bought 2 for different pot sizes for types of food?
4. I can understand the recommendation for outside cooking, but also see
the no-flay as working indoors for some cultures. One objection I had once was
taking up space. Any use of your no-flays indoors? The outdoor use any
problem with rainfall on the unfired bricks?
5. I am unaware of any other stove with internal support using the fired
bricks. Nice concept. I like there are three, not four inside. The 20 cm
height for three could be varied a little for different size pots and flames?
The fired bricks seem to cost 10 cents each, and the unfired at a little less
than half that. Could the fired bricks be supplied in rounded arc shapes
similarly? (Trying to move towards a TLUD version of same - needing a total
enclosure.)
6. A TLUD all-clay, local construction version (to obtain char) seems
doable - but would need drop down (removable) metal fuel containers. I hope
some reader can report they tried it. Maybe later I will. Getting rid of
metal is great. I think with wider fired bricks you might not need any outer
layer, although that does provide some nice preheating.
7. Is it necessary to sell this at $5? I would think your fuel savings
could easily justify the full $10 cost.
8. Your cost pie-chart showed a “micro” transport cost. What is that?
Again thanks for reporting on some very nice approaches. Best of luck on
future sales.
Ron
On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Roger Samson <[email protected]> wrote:
>The best way to identify the cooking needs of poor people is to ask them after
>spending considerable time with them in the field to understand their
>situation (ie to understand the cooking problem intimately and then brainstorm
>solutions together)
>
>This supposition that we have to cook indoors in much of the developing world
>is something that should be debated widely. In the western world we don't warm
>up our cars for extended periods in our house as we all agree this is poor for
>our health. Can we all recognize that it is a much better idea to run
>combustion appliances for cooking in an outdoor environment(especially in the
>tropics).
>
>
>The poor affordability and replicability of "high tech" stoves and fuels is a
>serious development barrier. Cooking outdoors (especially in rural areas) with
>appropriate local and low cost improved stoves and fuels is the most
>sustainable approach to address the health impacts of cooking. We need to
>combine improved cookstoves with a cooking environment that does not have
>stagnant air (ie one that recycles particulates or doesn't allow for particle
>dispersion). Cooking outdoors in rural areas has no ambient air impacts on
>communities so let's just do it. We are promoting this concept in west africa
>with the REAP clay brick stove known locally as the Noflay or "no problem"
>stove in the region.
>
>The health impact is a function of the technology x cooking time x environment
>in which the cooking is performed.
>We can express it in an equation form as H=T (technology) xT (time of
>exposure) x E(environment) in which the cooking is performed.
>
>
>All the best
>
>Roger Samson
>REAP-Canada
>http://www.reap-canada.com/
>
>
>
>
>From: Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>
>To: Discussion of biomass <[email protected]>
>Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 11:55:31 AM
>Subject: Re: [Stoves] NY Times article on what fuel poor need.
>
>
>
>Rogerio etal
>
>
> Brazil is going to be leading the way on biofuels of all types. In
>addition to ethanol (from sugar cane?), there are numerous plant species
>producing oily seeds that can be pressed. From time to time we have had seed
>oil proponents on this list. We have had several for ethanol stoves
>
>
> I had in mind also the use of all sorts of liquid fuels that can be
>produced from pyrolysis - with a biochar co-product, so we can accomplish some
>CDR (carbon dioxide removal).
>
>
> Liquid fuels can burn very cleanly and are nicely controllable.
>
>
>Ron
>
>
>
>On Dec 5, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Rogerio carneiro de miranda
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Agreeing with Ron.
>>
>>
>>Liquid biofuels, and specially ethanol can be an alternative cooking and
>>lighting fuel, either produced at large scale or at the community level with
>>micro-distilleries.
>>
>>
>>Project Gaia have demonstrated to me an efficient ethanol cookstove and also
>>an ethanol lamp, and I have seeing here ethanol power generators in operation.
>>
>>
>>Here in Brazil ethanol produced at farm level can be around US$ 0,50 per liter
>>
>>
>>Rogério
>>
>>
>>
>>2013/12/4 Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>
>>
>>Nari and list:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. I write to disagree with your conclusion on fossil fuels. They are
>>>“best” (in several senses, not including being cheaper) mainly because their
>>>externality costs are borne by all of society.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. I was surprised at first to see this view attributed to the NY Times.
>>> This was the view of Bjorne Lomborg who claims not to be a climate skeptic
>>>- but sure writes like one.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. I do agree that kerosene has many advantages to go with their
>>>disadvantages. A way to move to a majority of advantages is to call for
>>>liquid fuels rather than fossil fuels. These can have a biomass origin,
>>>and (especially in rural areas) can also be cheaper.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:23 PM, nari phaltan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hi stovers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A recent NYT article echoes what we have observed while working with rural
>>>>poor in India - they need excellent and convenient fuel for cooking and
>>>>lighting. Sometimes fossil fuels are the best.
>>>>www.nariphaltan.org/kerosene.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here is the NYT article;
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/the-poor-need-cheap-fossil-fuels.html?hp&rref=opinion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cheers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Anil
>>>> Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
>>>>Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road
>>>>P.O.Box 44
>>>>Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India
>>>>Ph:91-2166-222396/220945/222842
>>>>mailto:e-mail%[email protected]
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nariphaltan.org/
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Stoves mailing list
>>>>
>>>>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>>[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>>>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Stoves mailing list
>>
>>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>[email protected]
>>
>>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>
>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>[email protected]
>
>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Stoves mailing list
>
>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>[email protected]
>
>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
