[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 52, Issue 7

Elisha MOORE-DELATE e.mooredelate at geres.eu
Fri Dec 12 05:01:30 CST 2014


Hi Y'all 

Is there a new link to the u tube video. When I try to look at it, it says that it was removed by the user.

Thanks,

Elisha

----- Mail original -----
De: stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
À: "stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Envoyé: Dimanche 7 Décembre 2014 20:00:02
Objet: Stoves Digest, Vol 52, Issue 7

Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
	stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. COMPULSORY VIEWING!!! link from Re: The Aprovecho Newsletter
      - December 5th, 2014 (Paul Anderson)
   2. Two problems regarding WHO Guidelines ....was Re: A "Cut and
      Paste" Summary of the 2014 WHO Guidelines (Paul Anderson)
   3. Re: Two problems regarding WHO Guidelines ....was Re: A	"Cut
      and Paste" Summary of the 2014 WHO Guidelines
      (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
   4. Re: Two problems regarding WHO Guidelines ....was Re: A "Cut
      and Paste" Summary of the 2014 WHO Guidelines (Roger Samson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 19:55:10 -0600
From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
To: Aprovecho Research Center <tecardwell at aprovecho.org>, 	Discussion
	of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, 	Doc
	Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Subject: [Stoves] COMPULSORY VIEWING!!! link from Re: The Aprovecho
	Newsletter - December 5th, 2014
Message-ID: <5483B37E.6070403 at ilstu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Stovers,

Absolutely interesting and important is the just-released 8-minute video 
from Aprovecho.   Especially the final 2 minutes (starts at 5:50) need 
to be seen by all serious stove developers.  There ....
> ...... ARC unveils five new super clean-burning cookstove prototypes 
> that will be considered for mass production in 2015.
>
> Please watch on YouTube at:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e2_jSGIadk&feature=youtu.be 
> <http://aprovecho.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=6024c1562ffc2660833c676cf&id=52a7754d34&e=c1a3b0800a>
This is the first time these stoves have been openly shown, even though 
showing only a few seconds each.   Of exceptional note is the natural 
draft TLUD-ND stove designed by Kirk Harris!!!

One error (a very common misconception) is in the video at 6:46 
concerning the Aprovecho "Top Loaded Forced Air stove", putting it into 
a category with forced air TLUD stoves, saying that the "TLUD-FA design 
[that] is used in the Philips, BP, and Biolite stoves."  These four 
stoves use the migratory pyrolytic front (MPF) of the TLUD technology 
only at the beginning of burning, and then the fire is in the bottom 
(bottom burning with additional fuel added on top, as in standard (not 
MPF) up-draft gasifiers) with forced primary air blowing onto the 
charcoal located there, creating forge temperatures that require special 
materials (ceramics, cast iron, special metals) to avoid fast damage to 
the fuel chamber.  We do not know yet what is inside the fuel chamber of 
the Aprovecho "Top Loaded Forced Air stove".   These are cost factors.

This is all great progress!!!.   Congratulations Aprovecho!!!!

We will want to be comparing the cost of manufacture (or the sales 
price) of all of these stoves.   And the announced field trials of these 
5 stoves in 6 countries will be of great interest.

The first 6 minutes shows the sophistication of mass production of SSM 
company in China.   In the world of cookstoves, this is big business.

And  we will see these 5 stoves (among others) at the ETHOS meeting 
23-25 January 2015 in Seattle area.

Enjoy!!

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 12/5/2014 6:43 PM, Aprovecho Research Center wrote:
> Additionally, ARC unveils five new super clean-burning cookstove 
> prototypes that will be considered for mass production in 2015.
>
> Please watch on YouTube at:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e2_jSGIadk&feature=youtu.be 
> <http://aprovecho.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=6024c1562ffc2660833c676cf&id=52a7754d34&e=c1a3b0800a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141206/cfe012fe/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 21:51:32 -0600
From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: [Stoves] Two problems regarding WHO Guidelines ....was Re: A
	"Cut and Paste" Summary of the 2014 WHO Guidelines
Message-ID: <5483CEC4.8030607 at ilstu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"

Stovers,

Five days and no comments?  So I will re-state the two issues that are 
presented in the original messages (below):

1.  EVEN WITH CLEAN STOVES, the CO and PM levels are higher than 
expected, with probable causes being the uses of multiple stoves, lamps, 
etc.

Therefore, regarding health, we could be finding that the efforts to 
have ULTRA-CLEAN stoves (LPG, Solar, Electricity, biogas, alcohol) could 
be sufficiently undermined by household/ambient conditions that the 
improvements of the health of individuals are not being attained, 
regardless of the cost of those stoves and their fuels.

This is NOT a reason to stop efforts for clean stoves, but it could be a 
reason to focus more on getting better "stove stacking" with several 
reasonably improved stoves instead of putting too much 
emphasis/financial resources on having an ultra-clean stove placed in an 
setting without other improvements.

In other words, the recent increased recommended strict reduction of 
emissions for health purposes might be sooooo tight that broader changes 
in societal issues (life-styles such as stove stacking, windows open, 
different light sources, etc) become more important than having the 
ultra clean stoves.

2.  Chimneys are insufficiently understood and/or insufficiently 
consistent in operation  concerning emissions.   And there is an 
expectation of (or allowance of, or the modelling for) 25% of emissions 
coming into to room.

That this value (25%) is arrived at as the average value between 1% and 
50% seems very crude.   IMO, a stove with a chimney that lets more then 
40% of emissions enter the room is hardly deserving to be even called a 
chimney stove.  Not even 20% should be entering the room!!!!!

Such an expectation or assumption in a model clearly works against a 
stove with a good chimney arrangement and can favor a stove with a bad 
chimney arrangement.

There could be more to this chimney story than is currently evident.   
But until it is clarified, questions will continue to be raised.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 12/2/2014 9:07 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Thanks Dean -- that is very helpful.
>
> Stovers: there are some issues really worth discussing in this document.
>
> *Levels of CO and PM higher than expected in clean fuel studies*
>
> **
>
> 9.)Even allowing for variability and differing circumstances, it is 
> clear that the measured levels of PM and CO in homes using clean fuels 
> are much higher than predicted. This does not undermine the model, but 
> points towards other explanations. These include continued use of the 
> traditional stove (even in stove/fuel evaluation studies), along with 
> the new one (known as stacking), other emission sources in and around 
> the home (kerosene lamps, waste burning), and external sources such as 
> fuel combustion from other homes and other sources of combustion 
> contributing to outdoor air pollution entering all homes. (pg.123)
>
> That is of great concern to me because if the model is not predictive, 
> it means predictions of improvement are also not going to be 
> reasonably accurate. It does however open up a new possibility which 
> we are exploring at the moment in Indonesia: the use of specialised 
> solid fuel cookers for dedicated tasks. TLUD stoves are highly suited 
> to boiling water in a single-function device. The use of such a 
> 'kettle' combined with LPG would make for a very clean combination. 
> This should be explored as an intervention strategy that can achieve 
> much faster results than that anticipated by 'replace the stove and fuel'.
>
> *Model based on 75% of pollution going up the chimney*
>
> **
>
> 10.)The emissions model allows for ventilation (with a flue or 
> chimney) by assuming (based on empirical data from several studies and 
> countries) that the fraction of total emissions entering the room lies 
> between 1% and 50% with a mean of 25% and standard deviation of 10%. 
> On average, therefore, it is expected that emissions entering the room 
> from vented stoves are 75% lower than with unvented stoves. (pg.123)
>
> Twenty five percent? This is an unreasonable assumption. Good heavens. 
> No chimney stove operating like that would be used in any 
> self-respecting traditional home in Mongolia or Indonesia or South 
> Africa or Canada for that matter. No wonder the chimney stove 
> 'forecast' of their model emissions into the home has such a poor result.
>
> Was this perhaps deliberate in order to argue that only LPG and 
> electricity can suffice? Seriously -- why would such an assumption be 
> adopted, followed by a claim that chimney stoves 'can't meet the 
> emissions requirements into the room'?  They could easily be met by 
> using a proper chimney.  I hope this is not the beginning of a trend 
> to misrepresent the performance of clean burning solid fuel stoves. 
> Gasifiers burn solid fuels -- anything from peat to wood to pellets. 
> To label everything as inherently 'dirty' is unreasonable. Charcoal is 
> a very clean fuel in terms of PM even in a bad stove. In a good one, 
> the CO is really low as well.
>
> I was already worried when I saw in several places references to 
> 'clean fuels' as if the stove was not an inseparable element of clean 
> combustion. There is no such this as a 'clean fuel'. Any fuel can be 
> burned badly if it is put into a crummy stove.
>
> As always, if a stove is tested out of context, the results are suspect.
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
> +++++++++++
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've attached a "Cut and Paste" Summary of the new WHO Guidelines.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> 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/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141206/f514f74c/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 00:36:41 -0500
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Two problems regarding WHO Guidelines ....was
	Re: A	"Cut and Paste" Summary of the 2014 WHO Guidelines
Message-ID: <COL401-EAS336397AB6A92823E7159D5B1670 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear Paul

 

I think people may not have notice, may have been in shock that something so
odd was accepted by an institution like the WHO, or they may feel that the
problem was somehow misrepresented in the discussion.

 

There are a couple of things to clear up:


1.  EVEN WITH CLEAN STOVES, the CO and PM levels are higher than expected,
with probable causes being the uses of multiple stoves, lamps, etc.   



That only means they have not tested rooms using modern appliances. For some
reason we keep seeing in printed materials originating from Berkeley that
?fan stoves are 90% cleaner than baseline open fires? and that no other
stoves are that clean. Only fan stoves. Fan stoves are not magical. Some fan
stoves are a lot cleaner. Not all.

 

Some natural draft stick burning stoves are extremely clean too. And a
number of TLUDs whether charcoal making or not are as clean or cleaner that
?fan stoves? in general, even very good ones burning wood. Pellet burning
fan stoves are, so in my experience, the cleanest burning biomass stoves,
however the ?fan stoves? of yesteryear are not as good as the newest ones.

 

In my view we should be able to report that the best wood and pellet stoves
(fan or not) are 95% cleaner than the open fire baselines for PM and mush
lower for CO> In fact CO is not that difficult to deal with ? it can be low
but it does not have to disappear ? the exposure limit is actually much
higher than for PM2.5.


Therefore, regarding health, we could be finding that the efforts to have
ULTRA-CLEAN stoves (LPG, Solar, Electricity, biogas, alcohol) could be
sufficiently undermined by household/ambient conditions that the
improvements of the health of individuals are not being attained, regardless
of the cost of those stoves and their fuels.  

 

Hang on a minute, who said alcohol burning stoves are clean? As you know
many people report that ethanol is a ?clean fuel? as if that description
applied to any stove+fuel combination. There is no such thing as a ?clean
fuel?. Any fuel can be burned improperly if the stove is not designed to
deal with it. End of short story. I have seen some terrible ethanol burning
stoves. They put out a lot of VOCs and CO, particularly at high power.


When a really good ethanol stove is in use, there is virtually nothing to
detect at all. The idea that they are ?still higher? than is ?safe? is, in
my view, unreasonable and unproven. 


This is NOT a reason to stop efforts for clean stoves, but it could be a
reason to focus more on getting better "stove stacking" with several
reasonably improved stoves instead of putting too much emphasis/financial
resources on having an ultra-clean stove placed in an setting without other
improvements.   

 

Well, it is pretty easy to put a chimney on any stove. Combined with a draft
regulator (the tilting disk kind) they can be really good and all he PM and
CO goes outdoors. In a great many communities, the homes are so dispersed
that there is zero influence on other people outdoors. If this is not
intuitive, it is certainly obvious. China correctly treats domestic stoves
as a ?distributed source? for regulatory purposes. Thus concentration of
emissions does not arise as an issue (in cases someone thought that was a
regulatory metric).


In other words, the recent increased recommended strict reduction of
emissions for health purposes might be sooooo tight that broader changes in
societal issues (life-styles such as stove stacking, windows open, different
light sources, etc) become more important than having the ultra clean
stoves.



This is going to be a hard sell. If a stove is tested in a real kitchen that
is culturally representative of the cooking conducted, the fuels used and
the architecture, and the exposure of the cook or other people in the room
is ?safe? that that is the end of the story. All we have to do is build
combinations that are safe. Running around banning ?fuels? is not going to
impress anyone, especially of the alternatives are 10 times the cost.


2.  Chimneys are insufficiently understood and/or insufficiently consistent
in operation  concerning emissions.   And there is an expectation of (or
allowance of, or the modelling for) 25% of emissions coming into to room.

 

Even a $15 stove (retail) sold at the Ulaanbaatar Black Market emits a tiny
percentage of total emissions in to the room ? and that only when someone
pots a pot on or off. Even refuelling is handled through the fuel door. This
25% is simply not realistic. My question was, as a chimney is so obviously
the best way to get stove emissions out of the face of the cook, why would
such an assumption as 25% be considered at all! 

 

That this value (25%) is arrived at as the average value between 1% and 50%
seems very crude.   IMO, a stove with a chimney that lets more than 40% of
emissions enter the room is hardly deserving to be even called a chimney
stove.  Not even 20% should be entering the room!!!!! 

 

Is there a stove with a chimney leading outdoors that emits 50% into the
room? And as you say, why would one average a useless stove with a good one
to arrive at 25%? That alone doesn?t make sense. Shall we do the same for
other good and useless stoves? Why not average their emissions too? We could
then claim stoves can?t ever be clean because some of them are useless. This
is ridiculous.


Such an expectation or assumption in a model clearly works against a stove
with a good chimney arrangement and can favor a stove with a bad chimney
arrangement.   



Such an expectation is only convenient for banning the burning of all solid
fuels no matter how clean and efficient. Why do that? Whose side are they
on, here? Electricity is difficult to generate, expensive to distribute and
unreliable on most countries. LPG is very expensive to distribute ? even if
it were free and limitless in supply.


There could be more to this chimney story than is currently evident.   But
until it is clarified, questions will continue to be raised.



Well I think we should all have a look at the WHO process and documentation
to find out who such a decision was supported in the absence of up to date
information on what is burning clean.

 

The emissions from pellet burning stoves in Austria are reaching the
undetectable level. Cross draft gasifiers of coal and wood are both capable
of negative emissions of PM and very low values of CO. (Negative emissions
means the PM is lower in the chimney than in the air going into the stove.)

 

Further, the modelling of stove emissions in a room and assuming constant
emissions from an ?overall? measurement (say, from a filter) is a poor
representation of the risk to a cook from a stove. High dose emissions
during a short period provoke a very different response in the lungs than an
?average? dose over the whole period, assuming the total emitted is the
same. As the model described does exactly what is not going to give the
correct health impact assessment, we will have to rethink this entirely.

 

It is notable that on a few occasions in recent years, attempts have been
made to incorporate into stove standards a clause accepting WHO emissions
standards (with implied methods as well of course) without question. That is
a sort of ?appeal to authority?. Well, if the methods are as strange as has
been outline, there is no way they can be accepted without review by
technical experts from other quarters. The 25% assumption would be just such
a trigger for such a review. It is so far from reality that it raises
questions about the process that led to such a result.

 

What one must watch for is the co-opting of one ?authority? and the
extension of its conclusions, without examination, into other realms. It is
clear that the WHO team was not aware that there are far cleaner stoves than
?fan stoves? from 2009. The story about 90% reduction has been ?in press?
since 2009 and has not changed, even though there have been 5 years of rapid
development. That is the reason I pick 2009. By the time the GACC Roadmap
was being written it was already old news. 

 

By 2011 we had coal stoves burning lignite (very low sulphur, young coal) in
Ulaanbaatar that were more than 99% below the baseline. The local ambient
air was so dirty from unimproved stoves that in order to find dilution gas
to operate a PM diluter, it was seriously suggested to LBNL (which was
trying to measure emissions in the field) that they use a GTZ-7 series stove
as a source of dilution gas because it was operating cleaner than a HEPA
filter. The HEPA filter was only able to get the ambient air down to 20
micrograms per m3 while the stove, after the combustion settled into a
continuous mode, could strip out all PM completely ? literally undetectable
with a 1 ?g instrument ?  even though the ambient air going into the stove
was 200-600 ?g/m3 (which is typical for UB in winter).

 

If wood is prepared (pellets or other) it can burn that cleanly in a
well-designed chimney stove and nothing like 25% of the gases come into the
home. In fact if they did, it would still meet the IAQ requirements.

 

It looks to me like a plan to ban wood as a fuel by claiming it cannot be
burned ?cleanly?. The kerosene story I have told before. There are several
extremely clean burning kerosene stoves and lanterns ? for example all those
that meet the SANS 1906 and 1243 compulsory national standards for CO in
South Africa. It is the same standard as natural the gas stoves in the EU.

 

Here is a clean  burning $15 kerosene stove:



 

Show me an LPG stove that burns that cleanly.

The numbers are CO2 1.8%, CO 0ppm and CO/CO2 0.0000. Theoretically the CO
level could be as high as 4 ppm given the instrument precision and the level
of dilution air in the sample. I have seen two, maybe three
not-that-well-designed coal stoves burn at that CO level as well. 

 

This condition was sustained from more than an hour after which I got bored.
But I never get bored of chasing technical curiosities out of stove
standards.

 

Regards

Crispin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141207/eca7b738/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16334 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141207/eca7b738/attachment-0001.jpg>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 18:37:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: Roger Samson <rogerenroute at yahoo.ca>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Two problems regarding WHO Guidelines ....was
	Re: A "Cut and Paste" Summary of the 2014 WHO Guidelines
Message-ID:
	<601422882.6290755.1417977471251.JavaMail.yahoo at jws106132.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

?Hi Paul?As I have stated previously on many occasions the?air quality issue can be resolved more efficiently if a results based management approach is taken to address the?problem.?Sadly efforts to improve clean air have turned into a high tech stove race and holistic approaches have been marginalized. The current approach??is great for the engineering olympics but its an ineffective?sustainable development strategy to help poor people?adopt affordable cooking systems that will enable them to?breath cleaner air.? ?Roger Samson 

     On Saturday, December 6, 2014 10:51 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
   

  Stovers,
 
 Five days and no comments?? So I will re-state the two issues that are presented in the original messages (below):
 
 1.? EVEN WITH CLEAN STOVES, the CO and PM levels are higher than expected, with probable causes being the uses of multiple stoves, lamps, etc.?? 
 
 Therefore, regarding health, we could be finding that the efforts to have ULTRA-CLEAN stoves (LPG, Solar, Electricity, biogas, alcohol) could be sufficiently undermined by household/ambient conditions that the improvements of the health of individuals are not being attained, regardless of the cost of those stoves and their fuels.? 
 
 This is NOT a reason to stop efforts for clean stoves, but it could be a reason to focus more on getting better "stove stacking" with several reasonably improved stoves instead of putting too much emphasis/financial resources on having an ultra-clean stove placed in an setting without other improvements.?? 
 
 In other words, the recent increased recommended strict reduction of emissions for health purposes might be sooooo tight that broader changes in societal issues (life-styles such as stove stacking, windows open, different light sources, etc) become more important than having the ultra clean stoves.
 
 2.? Chimneys are insufficiently understood and/or insufficiently consistent in operation? concerning emissions.?? And there is an expectation of (or allowance of, or the modelling for) 25% of emissions coming into to room.?? 
 
 That this value (25%) is arrived at as the average value between 1% and 50% seems very crude. ? IMO, a stove with a chimney that lets more then 40% of emissions enter the room is hardly deserving to be even called a chimney stove.? Not even 20% should be entering the room!!!!!? 
 
 Such an expectation or assumption in a model clearly works against a stove with a good chimney arrangement and can favor a stove with a bad chimney arrangement.?? 
 
 There could be more to this chimney story than is currently evident.?? But until it is clarified, questions will continue to be raised.
 
 Paul
 Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD  
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com On 12/2/2014 9:07 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
  
 
#yiv8043997586 #yiv8043997586 -- _filtered #yiv8043997586 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv8043997586 #yiv8043997586 p.yiv8043997586MsoNormal, #yiv8043997586 li.yiv8043997586MsoNormal, #yiv8043997586 div.yiv8043997586MsoNormal {margin:0mm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv8043997586 a:link, #yiv8043997586 span.yiv8043997586MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8043997586 a:visited, #yiv8043997586 span.yiv8043997586MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8043997586 p.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraph, #yiv8043997586 li.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraph, #yiv8043997586 div.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0mm;margin-right:0mm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:106%;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv8043997586 p.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, #yiv8043997586 li.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, #yiv8043997586 div.yiv8043997586MsoLis
 tParagraphCxSpFirst {margin-top:0mm;margin-right:0mm;margin-bottom:0mm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv8043997586 p.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, #yiv8043997586 li.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, #yiv8043997586 div.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle {margin-top:0mm;margin-right:0mm;margin-bottom:0mm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:106%;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv8043997586 p.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, #yiv8043997586 li.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, #yiv8043997586 div.yiv8043997586MsoListParagraphCxSpLast {margin-top:0mm;margin-right:0mm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:106%;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv8043997586 span.yiv8043997586EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv8043997586 .yiv8043997586MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv8043997586 div.yiv8043997586WordSection1 {}#yiv8043997586 _filtered #yiv8043997586 {} _filtered 
 #yiv8043997586 {} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {} _filtered #yiv8043997586 {}#yiv8043997586 ol {margin-bottom:0mm;}#yiv8043997586 ul {margin-bottom:0mm;}#yiv8043997586  Thanks Dean ? that is very helpful.  ? Stovers: there are some issues really worth discussing in this document.  ? Levels of CO and PM higher than expected in clean fuel studies  ? 9.)???? Even allowing for variability and differing circumstances, it is clear that the measured levels of PM and CO in homes using clean fuels are much higher than predicted. This does not undermine the model, but points towards other explanations. These include continued use of the traditional stove (even in stove/fuel evaluation studies), along with the new one (known as stacking), other emission sources in and around the home (kerosene lamps, waste burning), and external sou
 rces such as fuel combustion from other homes and other sources of combustion contributing to outdoor air pollution entering all homes. (pg.123)  ? That is of great concern to me because if the model is not predictive, it means predictions of improvement are also not going to be reasonably accurate. It does however open up a new possibility which we are exploring at the moment in Indonesia: the use of specialised solid fuel cookers for  dedicated tasks. TLUD stoves are highly suited to boiling water in a single-function device. The use of such a ?kettle? combined with LPG would make for a very clean combination. This should be explored as an intervention strategy that can achieve much faster results than that anticipated by ?replace the stove and fuel?.  ? Model based on 75% of pollution going up the chimney  ? 10.)? The emissions model allows for ventilation (with a flue or chimney) by assuming (based on empirical data from several studies and countries) that  the fraction of total
  emissions entering the room lies between 1% and 50% with a mean of 25% and standard deviation of 10%. On average, therefore, it is expected that emissions entering the room from vented stoves are 75% lower than with unvented stoves. (pg.123)  ? Twenty five percent? This is an unreasonable assumption. Good heavens. No chimney stove operating like that would be used in any self-respecting traditional home in Mongolia or Indonesia or South Africa or Canada for that matter. No wonder the chimney stove ?forecast? of their model emissions  into the home has such a poor result.   ? Was this perhaps deliberate in order to argue that only LPG and electricity can suffice? Seriously ? why would such an assumption be adopted, followed by a claim that chimney stoves ?can?t meet the emissions requirements into the room??? They could easily be met by using a proper chimney. ?I hope this is not the beginning of a trend to misrepresent the performance of clean burning solid fuel stoves. Gasifiers b
 urn solid fuels ? anything from peat to wood to pellets. To label everything as inherently ?dirty? is unreasonable. Charcoal is a very clean fuel in terms of PM even in a bad stove. In a good one, the CO is really low as well.  ? I was already worried when I saw in several places references to ?clean fuels? as if the stove was not an inseparable element of clean combustion. There is no such this as a ?clean fuel?. Any fuel can be burned badly if it is put into a crummy stove.   ? As always, if a stove is tested out of context, the results are suspect.   ? Regards Crispin  ? +++++++++++  ?  Hi All,   ?   I've attached a "Cut and Paste" Summary of the new WHO Guidelines.    ?   Best,    ?   Dean    
  
 _______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

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
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

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/



   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141207/6e2be448/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

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://www.bioenergylists.org/


------------------------------

End of Stoves Digest, Vol 52, Issue 7
*************************************




More information about the Stoves mailing list