I saw a very interesting presentation Sunday from a guy who started a company called InStove. It’s a low cose high efficiency wood burning stove that reduces emissions by 90%. It also does a lot more cooking with a lot less fuel. In the presentation the founder of the company, who founded the org to give away these stoves to the third world, claimed that the total pollution from 3 billion people who cook with wood is greater than the sum of all the cars on earth. “This is low hanging fruit”, he claims. His stoves make life better and could cut CO2 emissions by a huge amount.
Important point. It reduces smog/CO2 because it uses far less wood.
Check out these specifications:
High Performance
- 75 to 90 percent fuel savings. Two or three kilograms of fuel is enough to cook a full pot of food.
- 90%-plus reduction in harmful emissions, including carbon monoxide and black carbon. InStoves produce no visible smoke.
- Twice as fast as cooking on an open fire – comparable to LPG.
- 50% thermal efficiency, a 2 to 5 times improvement over traditional methods.
Safe
- Zero Indoor Air Pollution, thanks to an integrated chimney that can route all emissions outside and away from people.
- Safe to the touch. Efficient, insulated design ensures safe surface temperatures to prevent burns.
- Stable. Practically tip-proof to reduce the chance of spills and scalds.
Practical
- Fuel flexibility. Efficient operation with a variety of biomass fuels in addition to wood, including our sustainable biomass briquettes.
- Durable. InStoves are expected to last 10 years with replaceable parts, and all stoves come with a 1 year warranty.
- Cost-effective. Our cookstoves can pay for themselves many times over in fuel savings, alone.
- Portable. No permanent installation is required, making InStoves easy to transport and relocate.
- Local manufacturing can be set up anywhere in the world with ourFactory-in-a-Box production method.
CO2 is not pollution. He is cutting real pollution. Wood is a renewable fuel, so it would cut CO2 emissions that way, except here he is replacing a wood stove with another wood stove. One renewable energy source being replaced with another renewable energy source, if the trees are replanted as paper mills do.
2-3kg for one pot of cooking doesn’t sound very efficient.
It cuts CO2 because it uses 1/5 as much wood.
That still is not a CO2 cut. For example, consider a paper mill. Every time they chop down a tree, they plant another one. If you use 5 times as much paper, they will plant five times as many trees.
The net CO2 effect is zero.
Actually, calling that a cut is the same way our federal government calls reducing a cut in how much to raise spending a cut.
A cut would be if the stove ran on unicorn tears and sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere,
That is a cut.
No doubt, an avid birther like Mr Diesel, if his “new truck” is More Than Twice As Fuel-Efficient because of Obama CAFE standards, he like “Donald the Duck Trump” couldn’t begin to understand such math and claim it must be magic like Obama birth certificate.
That new truck would be more expensive and smaller and lighter.
So burning 10 – 15 kg (22 to 33 pounds) of wood is normally necessary to cook one pot of food? I’d say that amount of wood should heat an entire house for two days in the northern sections of the US.
co2 is pollution. Its the very definition of poison: any substance once it reaches a certain level.
BURNING WOOD IS NOT THE ISSUE: ITS CARBON NEUTRAL (sic—given any level of general deforestation).
THE ISSUE: burning sequestered carbon==ie==not wood.
Basics. Missed by even those thinking they are informed.
You mean kinda like bullshit. Hoomans, then, must be eliminated since they emit this poison almost continuously by breathing, even more when they’re verbalizing.
Ha, ha….dadeo==in for your one shot?
YES…bullshit as excrement is exactly what co2 is and like all organisms, when the environment contains x% of our own exrement ….we die. For yeast in sugar water, their excrement is alcohol and at 12% the yeast die. For hoomans in our biossphere, there are many excrements, the one at issue is co2 and at x% we would all die. but…we will never get to x% because at 400ppm the co2 will melt all the land based ice raising sea level by 60 feet. Putting 60% of mankinds cities underwater. aka–a disruption to the status quo that is finely balanced to support our 7 Billion numbers. We die by a different but related mechanism.
14 Billion hoomans breathing would be no issue at all for the biosphere to absorb. Gee dadeo, you really are missing the mark way beyond any sense of humor or sarcasm. Its not hoomans breathing, THE ISSUE IS: humans burning fossil fuels.
I know you know this……just forgot it?
I’ll give you a mulligan, and not think poorly of you……….. this time.
What if the science deniers who believe that human exhalation, can be included into the 400ppm theory. Thus, we too are expendable, the highest intelligence life form on this blue orb. Only one solution for the deniers, hold your breath…all of ya.
Over here on the east coat all you see are big SUV type vehicles, well not all…but a lot.
Well–hooman breathing does contribute to co2 loading in the atmosphere. It just approaches zero in effect unlike cars, heating, cows and so forth AND as you reference…keeping hoomans healthy is about our top priority.
jp==do you recognize our great grand children are dead?
Its what the science says. Lag time is the killer. We will I think have the technology and price structures present, ((Just about now as a matter of fact)) but its all 20-30 years too late.
“Will the end come as fire or ice?” /// who thought it would come as excrement created water flooding our infrastructure?
I do understand what the coming decades have in store for my one child’s offspring. I am on the fence about my experiment in propagating, only because of the change in morals and the division created by not being able to put oneself in another ones shoe. I love my kiddo. But the long future doesn’t look bright.
Things have changed. Not for the better. I know some young adults who don’t want children, because of the coming energy and water shortages.
Sounds like we are much the same.
Sooooo “resigned” and really helpless to do anything…almost a form of denial.
…………and what causes the whole issue: hard to get excited about what will happen 100 years from now.
Still after 10 years of yapping about the subject, it wasn’t until a year ago I recognized what flooding the earth, or killing the ocean, or diverting the conveyor belt, etc…..really means.
Its not a movie.
During the energy crisis of the 70’s I was involved part time in selling and installing Jotul wood and coal burning stoves. Solar was starting and was very exciting till solar sputtered when oil prices came down. One of my favorite stoves.
http://jotul.com/us/products/stoves/jotul-f-602
I’m not in denial, I try to reuse instead of recycle. I drive less. We keep our trees on our property healthy. The big emitters of carbon and pollution are making the majority of money selling their wares around the world. Everyone want a new…
Exactly!!
Only when burning wood comes to DvUncensored shall Mark Perkel become the king of Elon’s world.
The 3rd world needs affordable, durable high efficiency solutions, period!
The “InStove” looks to be adapted from and improvement over the Franklin stove, where baffles are used to lengthen the fire’s fumes flow path to extract more heat by allowing more heat transfer from the hot fire’s fumes to room’s air. Here they are adding a “large” pot of water to take advantage of water ability to absorb high amounts of heat hot fire’s fumes before the water increases in temperature!
Moreover and likewise the Franklins Stove does cut the amount of fuel needed to heat a room and cook by its high efficiency. This would mean less biomass or wood deforestation is needed leaving more trees to carbon sink!
Trees are about half carbon, and when they are burned, the carbon is released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Whether the carbon can be offset by regrowth of trees depends on many factors, such as types of wood used and how much wood is harvested, and so on.
The regrowth of trees to replace those being cut down is not guaranteed and it takes time. Mature tree will be absorbing far more co2 than the young one that may replace it, consequently; it will take many decades before the tree that has been cut down and burnt is replaced by a tree mature enough to be an equally good carbon sink with the time period for recapturing the released carbon, 35 to more than 100 years.
A countries energy security (affordability and abundance) is a huge issue for any quality of life if not survival. I am all for an energy policy that has cafe standards, alternative and “green” sources of energy.
Coal is a real villain, it kills on the order of 4,000 times more people per unit of energy produced than nuclear power (black lung, tailing dumps, various toxic contamination, and mercury poisoning…).
The reason the continuing grinding, every-day death and illness caused by the coal related air pollution, poor mine safety and leaching from coal plants tailings ponds and dams continue unabated and unmentioned, enabling coal to kill with impunity; is the lower media profile (not as sensational as nuclear accidents)!
Coal deaths have been cooked into society and accepted because it is old technology going back to the 1700’s.
You almost lost me at “water gains heat without gaining temperature” but nice overall review. The concept is externalization of costs, ie, the supposed cheap cost of coal exists because not all of its costs are “in” the product.
All costs considered, Solar is now the cheapest energy source and will continue to get cheaper.
All externalized costs need to be terminated so as to allow the free market to develop Solar asap and as much as possible.
“water gains heat without gaining temperature” is a common comparative reference to waters heat capacity.
It’s not meant to be read or understood as an absolute, as you read it, silly.
Thats gibberish.
Conservation of Energy.
ALL the HEAT transfered from the atmosphere or directly from solar to the Ocean is THERE in the Ocean. Doesn’t matter you don’t present any understanding of the difference between heat and temperature. The HEAT is the same, the TEMPERATURE transfers back and forth to the same effects.
Its a global system.
I would call it magical thinking, if it were thinking at all.
I have no doubt the science and math of heat capacity is gibberish to you.
It’s because of waters amazing heat capacity you as a mammal (assuming you are a mammal?) can keep your body temperature regulated.
You may call yourself a doctor, but; you give many doubts you qualify.
Yup, but leave out ‘of heat capacity’.
Bobbo, where is the quote you cite and where did I say “water gains heat without gaining temperature”?
You idiot, that’s not anywhere in my original text!
What I did say:
“pot of water to take advantage of water ability to absorb high amounts of heat” … “before the water increases in temperature!”
Ha, ha…..took you long enough.
Beware of those who will quibble before dealing with what is known to be the issue.
…..but you are right. The HEAT is transferred as we both agree. Perhaps I am quibbling myself when ((I did assume)) that the temp change in the water is minimal but still there? Not an interruption at the start where the water does not increase in temp, but rather that the increase in temp is just very gradual with ANY input of heat? That makes sense to me….unlike the transition from water to ice, there is no phase change going on to interrupt the temp graph……I could be wrong…but I still doubt it. A quibble: In my case to have fun with the word play, not my thinking. close call though.
Anybody “know?” Perhaps a link from dadeo would reveal that heat is just a conspiracy theory of so called scientists?
……….but I dither. As I do when I ask what you mean by saying I called myself a Doctor? Was I THAT drunk>I don’t recall.
I am no Doctor, no Scientist….. I am an existential, pragmatic, anti-theist everyman. Ha, Ha. (ICMSU)==is not an advanced degree but rather stands for what we should all do, every day if possible: I Crack My Self Up. Perhaps too close to you own degree(s)?
^^ i’m a meteorologist, not a doctor, but if I had to make an educated guess, I’d say he’s got polio.
Tim, do you think DeflateGate was caused by evaporative cooling? Looking individually, the lowest pressures were at the end.
Phase change from water to steam? Is that “the same” as evaporation? In my ignorance, I could accept an answer either way…. even though I “use” the phase change of STEAM when making my own hard boiled eggs:
Stupid to cover with water, much more to cover by an inch or more, and even starting with cold water: then heat the whole thing up until it boils, then simmer. I just put in 1/4 inch water, enough to generate steam, and let the steam treansfer heat to the eggs many time more effectively. Avoids the problem of green tinge too.
I’ve been into perfecting omeletes for a while, so I haven’t boiled or poached in quite a while or Id give you the time for hard vs soft “set” eggs.
I call it; FITK, or Fun In the Kitchen.
Yes, I’m a looney liberal even with the mundane.
Nancy–you don’t fool me at all. The name, the post, the avatar of course. Where ya been?
Oh man, you link to a post with that Bill Nye video. Shows how unscientific he is. I’m embarrassed to have ever watched his show.
Here is Steve McIntyre’s suggesting it.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/23/deflategate-and-errors-in-the-wells-report/#comment-760695
Yes, the Colts kept their balls in the bag while on the field, so they would have been dry.
Not sure if you are joking, but you are right. The pressure was checked on the floor of the adjoining shower room, and some of the balls were inflated there.
I think they got the temp of the shower room wrong because they measured on a day when it was 19 outside instead of the 50 of this day.
If outside at halftime, could some of the moisture inside the football condense to form water inside, affecting n and V?
Next up from Marc: Burning whale oil reduces smog…
LOL. He’s already all aboard with 100 years old car tech.
If you want to truly reduce CO2 (which is a colorless, odorless GAS) then STOP FUCKING! But that’s not exactly politically correct (“PC”) nor will you ever get mindless animals to stop that sort of thing. Nevertheless, if we “humans” can be more RESPONSIBLE and limit our population it would definitely mean less production of CO2.
And in case you didn’t know, every animal including all humans do a thing called respiration which ALSO produces CO2 — it doesn’t come from just burning stuff. So if we stop procreating (fucking) and creating more human ANIMALS there will even less need for these more efficient stoves, cars, houses, etc. Even better, LESS HUMANS EQUALS LESS POLLUTION TOO!!!
No. The issue is not f*cking or breathing.
Jeebus you knuckledraggers are stupid.
THE ISSUE: burning fossil fuels.
THE SOLUTION: (here today, right now!): Solar based energy.
……………..get real hoomans. Your grandchildren…maybe great great grandchildren…are already DEAD. You ought to atleast admit your own responsibility.
“Great, Great Grandaddy, why did you burn all that fossil fuel and kill our planet?==Well, we thought a warmer ocean wouldn’t matter.”
This kind of F’in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting
Saw this several years ago, as a project in Africa. A good idea, glad to see it’s making progress.
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/how-much-time-do-we-have-left-halting-climate-engineering-is-a-primary-factor/
dadeo: apologies. (ref Spartacus) My first quick view of your links gave me the impression they were anti-science. Further looking (so far) is they just started with their own quirky vocabulary and issues re “Global Climate Engineering” but the actual articles are quite good.
The link above concludes that we have 10 years left. Hugely ambiguous about what that means.
But our house is on fire. The estimates as to when we see the flames is becoming more expressed….. and more immediate.
Maybe we will live to see what we have sown?
Most people miss the point of this stove. It is more efficient than what people in the third world are already using. They are breathing tons of smoke and falling into fires. They spend a ton of time getting wood. All they have is wood. If it does it better with less wood and is safer, it is a win. Stop putting your first world CO2 crappola on people who can barely feed their family.
Gee Brian……read the comments and the lead once again. Seems to me you refuse to accept a win/win development.
BOTH the first world and the third world have reasons to cheer this product on==meaning the third world will more likely get it?
Thats a good thing, don’t ya think?
Really bobbo?
This from above:
————————–
No. The issue is not f*cking or breathing.
Jeebus you knuckledraggers are stupid.
THE ISSUE: burning fossil fuels.
THE SOLUTION: (here today, right now!): Solar based energy.
……………..get real hoomans. Your grandchildren…maybe great great grandchildren…are already DEAD. You ought to atleast admit your own responsibility.
“Great, Great Grandaddy, why did you burn all that fossil fuel and kill our planet?==Well, we thought a warmer ocean wouldn’t matter.”
———————————————-
You think I did not read the comments?
Brian: Observe:
FIRST: I answer the question posed to me: “You think I did not read the comments?” //// I assumed you read some/most of the comments either thru or developing your own stated bias.
When you used “most people” did you do the math?….I did not as I don’t think what people post is the totality of what they think. The medium is the message and it gets constantly thrashed by a lack of space, time, connectivity, follow up and so forth.
Why even care what any perception of “most people” is? I pick through the comments looking for the very best work product, or something new, or something well phrased, or something to learn from or work with.
Why concentrate or even criticize a meaningless generality?
I’ll stop now with item 3 on my list of 18 responses: did you notice in review you did not address my issue/question to you at all?
Most People…………..are like that.
Yea, verily!
>I didn’t follow it closely
If you are following CO2 and global warming, then this is a must follow issue. Bill Nye has taken one side, video in the post Tim linked above, and Steve McIntyre has taken the other.
This is a great idea although the best solutions are ones that can be built locally for very little cost.
One of the worst problems in the developing world is smoldering trash piles. Another is bad water.
I’ve long wondered if there could be combination clean* trash burner and water distiller.
*Of course, burning trash is never going to be clean. But burning at a higher temperature, along, would help. A catalytic chimney would be a vast improvement.
Among their findings are that while wood does indeed only release CO2 that it has recently sequestered, “recently” is still a relative term. Pointing out that we need to cut CO2 emissions now, not in 30 years, the authors argue that burning wood directly undermines more beneficial uses for it that keep that carbon locked up for centuries whether that be building with it, making furniture, or presumably even burying it in the ground.