Biomass Cooking Stoves

The Stoves Discussion list has been sharing information to improve cooking stoves since 1996. We use this site, to keep track of the many types of stoves, their designs, and the progress that has been made to improve them, and spread efficient cooking stoves in world wide.

Use the stoves menu to narrow the list of stories to the type of stove you are interested in.

  • Impact Evaluation of the Use of Ethanol with the CleanCook Stove in the Kebribeyah Refuge Camp
    Ephrem Hassen, Ethiopian Rural Energy Development and Promotion Center, Ministry of Mines and Energy,Addis Ababa, October 2006
    James Murren, Project Gaia/Stokes Consulting Group, March 2008
    CleanCook StoveCleanCook Stove

  • “Tapping the Potential of Proalcool for the Household Energy Sector” Shell Foundation Project # 21316 Results of Project Gaia’s 100 CleanCook Stove Pilot Study Minas Gerais State, Brazil
    Regina Couto, Director Project Gaia Brazil, for Banco do Povo 17 January 2007

  • Narratives of House Visits in the Three Communities of Salinas, Dom Orione, and Ponte Nova in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil 12-20 June 2006

  • Project Gaia/Brazil Trip Report: Assessment of the CleanCook Stove Supported by Microdistillery Ethanol in Minas Gerais, Brazil, 9-25 June 2006
    James Murren The Stokes Consulting Group 2 July 2006

    Gaia Brazil 02Gaia Brazil 02

    Black stone pots are quarried and crafted in Minas Gerais. They
    are preferred especially for cooking beans and soups, as they keep
    the contents hot long after being removed from the stove.

  • Ethanol Stove:Development of Stove running on low ethanol concentration, June 2005 Anil Rajvanshi Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute, Phaltan, Maharashtra, India

  • Testing of the CleanCook Stove in Refugee Camps in Ethiopia
    Melat Esayas, Gaia Association January 2006

  • Production and dissemination of improved pottery stoves: New Lao Bucket and Anagi in the Philippines

  • Anagi Stove Construction in Sri Lanka
    ARECOP, Practical Action

    The most popular ICS in Sri Lanka is marketed under the trade name
    “Anagi”. The word “Anagi” in Sinhala language means precious or
    excellent. So “Anagi” stove is very useful as it saves fire wood and
    cooking time. Lab tests carried out on the stove indicate a technical
    efficiency of 21 % and numerous field cooking tests indicate average
    firewood savings over 30%...

  • Anila Biomass Gassifier Stove Designed and built by Professor U.N. Ravikumar (Eng) Mysore University, India In Biochar and SCAD presented by David Friese-Greene, The Schumacher Institute, Bristol (9.88MB pdf)

    Anila Stove Anila Stove
    Combustion Cycle Combustion Cycle
  • ARISTO. The Plant oil stove
    Yun Ho Chae, Grupo Ari SA, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic December 3, 2008

    Two Burner ARISTO StoveTwo Burner ARISTO Stove
  • Fuel Efficient Stove Programs in IDP Settings - Summary Evaluation Report, Darfur
    Academy for Educational Development for USAID, December 2008

    1. INTRODUCTION: EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
      Around the world, conflict and natural disasters have displaced millions of people. Displaced populations fleeing to settlement camps and seeking safety in host villages often put great stress on natural resources, leading to environmental degradation and conflict with local populations. One of the greatest needs of people affected by crisis, be they displaced, settled, or on the move, is firewood or some other type of fuel to cook their food, heat their homes, and treat water for drinking and food preparation. The risks endured (especially by women and children) collecting scarce wood resources constitute some of the most challenging and serious protection concerns both in IDP camps and in villages where conflict over resources is high.

    USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) has been one of the key US Government entities providing funding for humanitarian organizations implementing fuel-efficient stove (FES) programs in populations of internally displaced persons (IDPs). The FES programs are intended to help accomplish various goals, such as improved food security or decreased deforestation, by reducing fuel consumption. However, the large number of implementers, their varying program objectives and degrees of expertise, and differing conditions within and among IDP communities have made it difficult for OFDA to determine the relative efficacy of the FES interventions and provide guidelines for USAID-funded institutions working in IDP settings.

    OFDA therefore enlisted the assistance of the USAID Energy Team to undertake a multi-phase evaluation in order to derive “best practices” for future FES interventions. While the primary purpose of this evaluation is to provide guidance to USAID-funded organizations, USAID hopes to inform the broader humanitarian community by sharing the results of the evaluation with other organizations. Eventually, the best practices will be developed into a series of recommendations and toolkits for use by NGOs, donors, and other groups operating FES programs in IDP settings.

    Phase I of the evaluation (November 2006) was a desk study of recent FES projects in refugee and IDP settings. Based on the desk study findings, Phase II (December 2006) entailed the development of a methodology for conducting the evaluation fieldwork. Phase III involved on-site research in IDP camps in Northern Uganda and in Darfur. The Northern Uganda report has been completed and is available on USAID’s web site.1 Phase IV will entail the development of recommendations and tools to improve FES programs.
    The Phase III field research in Darfur took place in two phases. First, a four-day review and training on the evaluation methodology and tools was held in Khartoum in March 2008 with the assessment team. The fieldwork in Darfur IDP camps took place from 16 April to 9 May 2008, with a six-person all-Sudanese team composed of technical stove experts and social scientists. Three OFDA-funded NGO FES programs, one in each region of Darfur, were selected for assessment. However, due to continued security concerns and the difficult logistics of deploying a team of investigators into Darfur, it was possible to include only two regions in the assessment. This report summarizes findings regarding programs being implemented by two organizations in Otash Camp in Nyala, South Darfur, and one organization in Kabkabiya near El Fasher, North Darfur. The implementing NGOs are not named in this report and are identified only as NGO A, B, and C.

    The evaluation methodology incorporated a number of different tools to collect both quantitative and qualitative data on the FES programs. The underlying objectives were to determine 1) if the FES interventions were meeting their fuel saving goals, and 2) why or why not. Specific areas examined included:

    • •cooking technologies
    • •user outreach and education programs
    • •stove production and dissemination strategies
    • •FES project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks

    In total, the field team conducted 150 household energy surveys, 66 controlled cooking tests, and 50 water boiling tests, as well as camp and programmatic surveys, focus group discussions, and informal participant observation and interviews. This summary report consolidates the findings from the three Darfur program evaluations and presents OFDA with preliminary recommendations designed to improve the impact and quality of its future support to FES activities in IDP situations. Final recommendations and guidance from “lessons learned” will be developed from the findings of both the Darfur and Northern Uganda assessments.

  • Dissemination of efficient ASTRA stove: case study of a successful entrepreneur in Sirsi, India
    C.M. Shastri, G. Sangeetha and N.H. Ravindranath, Energy for Sustainable Development l Volume VI No. 2 l June 2002

  • AVAN STOVE - WOODGAS AND ROCKET STOVE PRINCIPLES
    N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy,GEO GEOECOLOGY ENERGY ORGANISATION, December 30, 2007
    Avan (Earth) StoveAvan (Earth) Stove
    Avan (Earth) Stove http://e-avanstove.blogspot.com/ has the features of both Rocket stove and Woodgas stove. It is made up of 25 nos of ordinary bricks, four bricks with slits, one piece of flat tile, one steel grate 7x7 inches and Clay mixed with cow dung. The approximate cost of construction is $ 2 (USD). All types of biomass can be used as fuel (Sticks / twigs / chips of wood / dry leaves / grass / saw dust / cow dung cakes / paddy husk etc.) and advantage of gravity is used for easy and semi-automatic feeding. Designed by Dr. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy, GEO -Geoecology Energy Organisation http://www.e-geo.org declared as Creative Commons.

  • Fuel Efficient Stove Programs in IDP Settings - Summary Evaluation Report, Darfur
    Academy for Educational Development for USAID, December 2008

    1. INTRODUCTION: EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
      Around the world, conflict and natural disasters have displaced millions of people. Displaced populations fleeing to settlement camps and seeking safety in host villages often put great stress on natural resources, leading to environmental degradation and conflict with local populations. One of the greatest needs of people affected by crisis, be they displaced, settled, or on the move, is firewood or some other type of fuel to cook their food, heat their homes, and treat water for drinking and food preparation. The risks endured (especially by women and children) collecting scarce wood resources constitute some of the most challenging and serious protection concerns both in IDP camps and in villages where conflict over resources is high.

    USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) has been one of the key US Government entities providing funding for humanitarian organizations implementing fuel-efficient stove (FES) programs in populations of internally displaced persons (IDPs). The FES programs are intended to help accomplish various goals, such as improved food security or decreased deforestation, by reducing fuel consumption. However, the large number of implementers, their varying program objectives and degrees of expertise, and differing conditions within and among IDP communities have made it difficult for OFDA to determine the relative efficacy of the FES interventions and provide guidelines for USAID-funded institutions working in IDP settings.

    OFDA therefore enlisted the assistance of the USAID Energy Team to undertake a multi-phase evaluation in order to derive “best practices” for future FES interventions. While the primary purpose of this evaluation is to provide guidance to USAID-funded organizations, USAID hopes to inform the broader humanitarian community by sharing the results of the evaluation with other organizations. Eventually, the best practices will be developed into a series of recommendations and toolkits for use by NGOs, donors, and other groups operating FES programs in IDP settings.

    Phase I of the evaluation (November 2006) was a desk study of recent FES projects in refugee and IDP settings. Based on the desk study findings, Phase II (December 2006) entailed the development of a methodology for conducting the evaluation fieldwork. Phase III involved on-site research in IDP camps in Northern Uganda and in Darfur. The Northern Uganda report has been completed and is available on USAID’s web site.1 Phase IV will entail the development of recommendations and tools to improve FES programs.
    The Phase III field research in Darfur took place in two phases. First, a four-day review and training on the evaluation methodology and tools was held in Khartoum in March 2008 with the assessment team. The fieldwork in Darfur IDP camps took place from 16 April to 9 May 2008, with a six-person all-Sudanese team composed of technical stove experts and social scientists. Three OFDA-funded NGO FES programs, one in each region of Darfur, were selected for assessment. However, due to continued security concerns and the difficult logistics of deploying a team of investigators into Darfur, it was possible to include only two regions in the assessment. This report summarizes findings regarding programs being implemented by two organizations in Otash Camp in Nyala, South Darfur, and one organization in Kabkabiya near El Fasher, North Darfur. The implementing NGOs are not named in this report and are identified only as NGO A, B, and C.

    The evaluation methodology incorporated a number of different tools to collect both quantitative and qualitative data on the FES programs. The underlying objectives were to determine 1) if the FES interventions were meeting their fuel saving goals, and 2) why or why not. Specific areas examined included:

    • •cooking technologies
    • •user outreach and education programs
    • •stove production and dissemination strategies
    • •FES project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks

    In total, the field team conducted 150 household energy surveys, 66 controlled cooking tests, and 50 water boiling tests, as well as camp and programmatic surveys, focus group discussions, and informal participant observation and interviews. This summary report consolidates the findings from the three Darfur program evaluations and presents OFDA with preliminary recommendations designed to improve the impact and quality of its future support to FES activities in IDP situations. Final recommendations and guidance from “lessons learned” will be developed from the findings of both the Darfur and Northern Uganda assessments.

  • DE LA “LORENA” A LA “PATSARI”: PROCESO DE MEJORAMIENTO E INNOVACIÓN DE TECNOLOGÍA RURAL

    En este documento se hace un poco de historia del desarrollo de la estufa Patsari. Originalmente este artículo se presentó en la Latin America Regional Conference 2004, celebrada en Guanajuato, Gto.

    patsari-gro: Estufa Patsari en Guerrero  Foto: Rodolfo Dpatsari-gro: Estufa Patsari en Guerrero Foto: Rodolfo D

    Si desea obtener el artículo completo, favor de solicitarlo a: rodolfodiazj@yahoo.com.mx

    INTRODUCCIÓN
    La tecnología no es un elemento neutro, ni resultado “natural” del desarrollo científico-tecnológico, tampoco es un “paquete” que debe ser adaptado y usado en todas partes. Por el contrario, la tecnología es resultado de una compleja interacción de las necesidades, recursos, y de los objetivos y la lógica de desarrollo de quien la diseña. Es por esto que existe un gran número de necesidades, sobre todo en las zonas rurales de los países en desarrollo, que no se cubren actualmente, ni interesa cubrir en el mediano plazo.

  • ESTUFA AHORRADORA DE LEÑA (pdf 6 MB)
    Claudia María Velásquez Porta 2005

    CECAREM Centro de Capacitación y Reproducción de Especies Menores,

  • Estufa Mejorada Tipo Armenia
    Universidad de El Salvador, Facultad de Ingeneria y Arquitectura
    Escuela de Ingenieria Quimica, Operaciones Unitarias II

  • I learned to make TLUDs from Dr. Paul Anderson when he came to do a stove & biochar demonstration for Biochar Ontario in June 2009. Since my primary interest was in producing biochar, I went home and began building a larger version of the “Champion” TLUD stove from a 55 gallon drum and a 25 gallon drum (pictured above.) I have been following this list since then and on “Dr. TLUD’s” urging, I thought should begin sharing with this community what I have been learning.

    The “Large TLUD”

  • Report on TLUD Discussions at the 2010 ETHOS conference
    By Christa Roth and Kelpie Wilson
    Submitted 8 March 2010

    There was a good showing of TLUD technology at the annual ETHOS Stoves conference in Kirkland, WA, USA on January 29-31, 2010. This report covers some of the discussions about TLUDs that took place at conference sessions.

    Dr. Paul Anderson, a.k.a., “Dr. TLUD”, made the pitch for TLUDs and biochar throughout the conference. He brought a large collection of 20 different TLUDs. Most were simple homemade devices made from “tincanium” (Dr. Anderson’s Friday evening presentation on the wonders of “tincanium” was delightfully humorous). TLUD designers Art Donnelly, Christa Roth, and Hugh McLaughlin all had stoves on display. Anderson had one example of a mass produced TLUD that is manufactured in India.

    About 30 people attended the TLUD community discussion session. To get an overview and discover who had which type of specific interest, the participants were asked to raise hands on which aspects of application of the TLUD principles they were interested in. The following aspects were identified:

    • Applications: is the main focus on cooking, biochar, or a combination of both?
    • What are appropriate sizes? TLUDs exist for 2 cups, 2 liters, 5 l, 20 l up to 5 gallon, 20 gallon, 55 gallon. The interest in producing biochar is driving design of larger TLUDs.
    • Natural draft or forced air. If using forced air, what are the implications of different power sources: grid, Thermo Electric Generator (TEG), battery based electricity
    • Emissions (indoor, outdoor, any)
    • Fuels (types of fuels, sizes and densities)
    • Locations (which continent, urban, peri-urban, rural environments)
    • Materials for TLUDs (ceramics, metal)
    • What price range is acceptable? (developed country, developing countries)
    • What can we as individuals and organizations do to advance TLUD technology?
    • What are the future prospects of TLUD technology?

    Participants at the TLUD session participants made a list of TLUD features as compared to other stove types such as the rocket stove:

    • Makes biochar
    • Starts fast, boils water very quickly, and burns a long time on one load of fuel
    • Less attention required for fuel input (no continuous stoking of the fuel needed), increasing freedom for the operator/cook
    • Fuel flexible – uses small size waste that cannot be burned in other stoves
    • Cleaner than other kinds of stoves, with low Black Carbon (BC), Organic Carbon (OC) and CO
    • Variety of scales and applications from cooking to metal forging, including barbecue, grilling, frying, heating, lighting
    • Lightweight, portable and modular; can use multiple units to control heat output
    • Easy and cheap to build from tin cans or sheet steel. Dimensional tolerances are not stringent
    • Low temperature operation. Pyrolysis temperatures are below 500 degrees C, resulting in less combustion chamber burnout
    • Suitable for fireplaces that are not allowed to burn open fires any longer
    • Safe for indoor space heating with flue exhaust
    • Can be an inexpensive add-on to existing stoves for specialized applications (e.g. water kettle in addition to a plancha stove) and to take advantage of small sized fuels not suitable for a rocket stove

    A few TLUD problems/challenges were also identified:

    • Lack of turndown ratio
    • Lack of emissions robustness. More emissions on startup and sometimes on shut down.
    • Changing fuel form factor when adding new fuel can cause stalling.

    The group discussed in detail the following ideas for advancing TLUD development:

    Materials: light-weight ceramics are not necessarily needed for insulation of the combustion chamber, unlike in a rocket stove, as for TLUDs the temperature in the fuel bed stays at ambient temperature until the pyrolysis front passes through. Then temperatures get higher. The open flames are not within the combustion chamber but above the fuel bed. The hottest parts of a TLUD stove are the concentrator disk and the bottom of the fire chamber, where the remaining charcoal might be burnt creating high temperatures (if the char is not dumped out and conserved for other use e.g. as biochar). Ceramics are cheap to fabricate, e.g. consumable stove components like the concentrator disk or the bottom plate of the fire chamber. Options for modular stove designs containing ceramic parts to be explored further. A huge gap between standard pottery and industrial ceramics was noted.

    Production and Dissemination: Stoves should come as a kit: combustion chamber + pot stand/application + snuffer box for the char to be saved.

    Economics of charcoal: The saving of char could become more popular if the produced charcoal were attributed more value (carbon offsets for biochar used in the soil, charcoal fines to be processed into charcoal briquettes, water filters etc.)

    Modular advantages: TLUDs excel on high power output, e.g. boiling water, but don’t turn down the power so well. The concept of having a different and/or smaller combustion unit for the simmering stage or replacing the continuous heat addition with a retained heat cooker should be explored further. Modular systems could use a number of TLUD burners under a large pot or grill. If cooking lasts a long time, such as firing a grill at a restaurant, you could replace spent TLUDs with new ones to keep the heat going while you recharge spent TLUD’s with new fuel.

    Despite the advantages of the TLUD there are very few stove programs using TLUDs. Here are the ones we know about:

    • The BP Oorja stove, now called FirstEnergy, distributed 400,000 units in India, but there exists little feedback on the campaign.
    • Phillips had a TLUD stove and planned a major roll-out in India to start late 2009, but no up-to-date info is available.
    • Nathaniel Mulcahy of World Stove is manufacturing institutional and household size stoves in Haiti (uses a pyrolytic gasifier technology similar to TLUD); allegedly building over 100 units per day with plans to upscale and add a fuel production unit for grass pellets. This is a very interesting project in the limelight, with high potential to create worldwide awareness. To be observed.

    Other than those listed above, there are no projects yet at a major scale. Participants observed that this was a ‘chicken-and-egg’ scenario: Donors only want to roll out ‘already proven technologies’ but nobody apart from major companies like BP or Phillips has the money to do the research needed to prove the technologies. Funding is needed for research to get the combustion chamber to the application stage and to collect user feedback on a major scale.

    The group felt there was a strong need to get more experience on the ground building and cooking on TLUDs. In Uganda this year a TLUD-project with World Bank funding will start. Funding has been secured for 2 years. More projects are needed.

    What participants committed to do:

    • Cook on a TLUD. Several people have been making TLUDs, but very few have been cooking on them. Some people volunteered to use a TLUD for cooking for a given time, like a month, and blog about the experience. More volunteers are needed to do this.
    • Create awareness and knowledge about TLUDS.
    • Paul Anderson committed to put a TLUD handbook on the web.

    Upcoming TLUD events include a Combined Heat and Biochar event in Massachusetts on 9-13 August (contact Paul Anderson for more details) and the annual Stove Camp at Aprovecho, 26 to 30 July. Dean Still, organizer of the Aprovecho Stove Camp has said the camp will focus on the TLUD this year.

  • Magh CM Laxmi [MCL] is a Natural draft woodgas stove. It is a modification of Magh CM for convenience of using all types of Biomass as fuel.

    In many villages power is rarely available or available for few hours. In such a situation peoples' priority is for Natural draft stoves as compared to forced air stoves. The control on feeding fuel to the stove is another aspect, which people prefer. And more importantly the community wants freedom regarding the type of fuel to be used. They dont want to have stoves for different types of fuels, as they cannot afford as many stoves as types of fuels.

    Magh CM Laxmi evolved from Magh CM. One of the user of Magh CM Ms. Laxmi, Peddamaduru village, has removed the fan and started feeding the sticks from side openings. She is able to use this stove with wood shavings and the sticks. She could use this stove for large scale cooking (12 members), during one of the festivals without any problem.

    Keeping in view the adoptation factors and convenience of cooking MCL design is finalized. In honor of Ms. Laxmi the stove is named as Magh CM Laxmi (MCL). By increasing the height of the stove (chimney effect) the soot has been reduced.

    Apart from using sticks, it is also convenient to use woodshavings / pieces of wood / leaves / dung balls / dung cakes / pellets / any small pieces of biomass fuel through the elevated side feed tray (its inclination can be controlled for fuel to slide down into the combustion zone).

    In both Magh CM and Magh CM Laxmi the design enables the user to control the flames in the stove through primary air control shutter, convenience of removal of biochar. This stove costs about $6. For more information on [Magh series stoves]

  • by Hugh McLaughlin, PhD, PE, Alterna Biocarbon Inc., January 2010 Version

    Download the Instructions: 1G Toucan TLUD for Biochar Jan 2010 - final.pdf (630kb)

  • The author, Gary Gilmore, explains how he designed a charcoal retort from 55 gallon drums. This is a smoke free design also the flare could be put to use.

  • How to Make Charcoal
    Robert Flanagan, SAFFE, January 30, 2008

    I've just been playing around with my natural draft stove to see how easy it would be to use it for cooking and making charcoal.

    I fed some extra fuel in the side to show the pyrolysis reaction taking place.

  • Making Charcoal for Biochar at Home
    Charlie Sellers, November 18, 2007

  • Robert Flanagan's Biochar Stove: Carbon Negative Cooking
    David Yarrow, TERRA: The Earth Restoration & Renewal Alliance, October 30, 2007


  • http://stpenergy.blogspot.com/

    Teaching Renewable Energies and Sustainability in the School of Diogo Vaz (São Tomé, Africa)

    This work aims to show how sustainability and renewable energies could benefit a rural area of Africa (in São Tomé) by means of using solar energy and biogas. Applying these technologies requires ingeniousness and little founding, the favourable outcomes are becoming less dependent of fossil fuels (wood, coal and gasoline) while saving time and, more importantly, the forest. We have taught how to design, build and operate systems for cooking, lighting and water-heating that use renewable sources of energy.

  • Biodigestores Familiares - Guia de Diseno y Manual de Instalacion
    Jaimie Marti Herrero, Proagro/GTZ, Bolivia Noviembre 2008
    Biodigestores de polietileno tubular de bajo costo para tropico, valle y antiplano

    Biodigestor Familiar
    Biodigestor Familiar