[Stoves] The future of biomass stoves. was...Fwd: [stove and LF Annals] Historical watershed

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Paul

 

Thanks for noticing this silliness that seems to expand each year.

 

What has happened is that some people have got their world view locked in
2007 or something and are continuing to 'bring technical solutions' that are
outdated. Even if the recommendations were ever true, which I doubt, they
are not practical.

 

Whether we should be proposing practical solutions or pie-in-the-sky
solutions is an urgent question. First of all, there is not enough LPG to
satisfy peoples domestic energy requirements. End of that short story. There
is a huge shortage of electrical power and even if it were available,
distributing it is an enormous challenge. At the power point (plugs) it
would cost so much we would bankrupt continents subsidising it as a
replacement for biofuels. It is not going to happen, and should not.

 

Advances in stove combustion is not generally recognised and the tests we
have for evaluating performance are so bad that people don't really know
what the performance of stoves products are to begin with, let alone what to
support or how and in what measure and on what basis. There is a lot of
yelling, but not much clarity about how clean things are, how to get things
clean, and what the consequences will be. The advances in the past 3 years
in clean combustion are serious underestimated.

 

Although the lower comment in caps reflects general ignorance of how well
stoves can burn fuels, the commenter is not alone 'out there'. The sentiment
is also promoted by the gas industry and other vested interests. Don't think
this is a cosy planet populated only by self-sacrificing volunteers
improving the common weal. People want money and power.

 

Just to highlight what is possible compared with what is believed, Dr Kirk
Smith wrote a report this year for the Environment Ministry in Mongolia
analysing the city's air pollution numbers and suggested several scenarios
that are somewhat like the IPCC's 'global warming' scenarios where there are
multiple paths we can create if we take action 1, action 2 or action 3.  He
suggested LPG will reduce air pollution. Huh.

 

He projected a PM2.5 level in Ulaanbaatar that showed a slow rise with
population if the government's current plan to replace ger stoves, then
small home boilers, continued using the 'available technologies' (which are
evaluated locally, BTW). A downward trending scenario 2 resulting in a 40%
or so improvement (can't remember the exact number) was only possible of
there was a breakthrough technology that was '50% cleaner' that those
supposed in scenario 1, and this would have to be rolled out in similar
fashion.

 

The conclusion was that even in scenario 2 there was going to be a PM level
far above the WHO limit before they reduce it further. Where is it going? It
is going crazy of course. There was an observation that the EPA was going to
make it pretty much impossible to farm because farms produce airborne dust.
They were going to set a limit so low it would have prevented ploughing.
Maybe they can ban wind. Dunno, but PM is in the crosshairs for more
regulation.

 

So there are some problems with this sort of analysis about Ulaanbaatar,
which I believe is no unusual in how it was done, how the numbers were
crunched or how expectations underwrote the conclusions.

 

1.       The current UB-CAP stove replacement programme which has reached
about 180,000 ger-stove-using homes continues now for the third year. The
reduction in PM2.5 in ambient UB City air has been some 45% in two years,
exceeding the scenario 2 case for improving the air, yet it required no
additional 'breakthrough' technology. That is still to come. They haven't
even moved to pelleted fuel or anything helpful like that.

2.       If the entire city stopped heating their homes and apartments
tomorrow it would never drop to the PM limit set by the WHO because the
PM2.5 in the air is no longer (right now) even 50% caused by home energy
heating. It is caused by all sorts of things but particularly vehicles and
dust blown off the ground and from the Gobi Desert (like Beijing).

3.       The call in the report to convert all homes to a set of alternative
energy sources such as LPG (imported), electricity (no power stations
available), and DME (dimethyl ether, largely to be imported and very
expensive) is simply never going to happen. The WB and others looked at
these years ago when there was no really clean stove option. Now there is
and they are rolling it out, there is no need to waste millions. Or
billions. We should process the available fuels into forms that make it easy
and cheap to burn them with virtually no measurable anything.

 

So you gotta wonder who is behind these calls for various massively
subsidised energy interventions. Have you noticed that fuels are always
criticised on the basis of how some crummy, low tech device burns them?
Dung is always reported to have a really low combustion efficiency, as if
cows make it that way.  Kerosene is a good example: "stinking and smoky
fuel". Yeah?  See much stinky smoke training behind turbofan engine powered
aircraft? They run on kerosene.

 

Prof Annegarn asks a very relevant question: "What is smoke made of?"

 

If you burn the smoke there isn't any. Why not do that instead of
manufacturing bogeymen to hurl billions of $ at? Is the money supply
infinite?

 

I just read a national standard that talked about only allowing the burning
of 'treated coal' meaning semi-coked of course. The purpose of semi-coking
is to remove 'volatiles' which people erroneously believe contain 'smoke' as
if smoke was one of the Elements. OMG. They want to remove the hydrocarbon
fuel to leave the carbon fuel - much harder to light, larger fuel pile
required at all times, and earlier refuelling required or it goes out. For
this they would triple the cost of fuel and subsidise it to the poor instead
of creating stoves that burn the fuel properly. I guess we can always count
on the vote of the 'subsidee' for expensive 'treatment'.

 

Paul, you and I know that there is very little formal support for stove
product development. That which is happening is often misdirected by private
companies creating products optimised to get good numbers 'on standard
tests' or National Standards which are themselves not measuring or
calculating or reporting properly. It is a mess.  

 

It is widely acknowledged (I believe) that the EPA stove test for space
heating, wood burning stoves does not characterise performance in homes, it
characterises performance when tested the way they test it. Actual
performance is really different. We all know that.

 

I am picking on them because they are in a position to do something about it
and haven't.  India is in a position to change their national test method
but getting agreement to make a break with the past is always difficult.
Will they do it? In both cases the major issue has to do with the fuel used
(and its moisture content) and how it is run (the burn cycle).  Using an
atypical fuel or with atypical moisture in an atypical manner will
invariably give atypical emissions. Products are allowed/disallowed based on
those numbers, only.

 

So, the manufacturers make stoves that will burn the atypical fuel in the
atypical manner to get a stamp, then sell them to people who they know full
well will never get that performance because they are using normal fuels and
normal burn cycles. 

 

Let's see what happens on the 20-21st Nov in NYC, and whether or not it
provokes the growing anti-solid-fuel-stove forces to try to bring down the
house. They are out there - make no mistake, and they smell money. Big
money.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Anderson
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 1:05 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Hugh McLaughlin; Kirk Smith
Subject: [Stoves] The future of biomass stoves. was...Fwd: [stove and LF
Annals] Historical watershed

 

Stovers,

The message below from Dr. Kirk Smith's mailing list has not been
distributed to the Stoves Listserv.   It is too important to overlook, and
merits our discussions.

He wrote: 

newer evidence since 2005 on the health effects of combustion air pollution,
as for example found in the latest Global Burden of Disease estimates, would
indicate that when the next revision of the AQGs is done (as now planned),
the limits will become even lower.  The stove community thus should probably
therefore consider what this document recommends as likely to tighten
further [emissons standards] over time.    (emphasis added)


In an earlier (Nov 6) message to the Stoves Listserv, this comment by a
reviewer stated about Dr. Smith's work: 

IT MARKS A MAJOR SHIFT IN THINKING FROM IMPROVING COOK STOVES TO RECOGNIZING
THAT TO GAIN THE POSITIVE HEALTH IMPACT STOVES HAVE TO BE CLEAN (GAS-LIKE),
AND THAT PROBABLY THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS ON A MASS SCALE IS THROUGH LP
GAS AND ELECTRICITY.


Holy Smokes!!   Nobody even made a comment about this!!  (I was on a trip
and am only replying now.)   That is an endorsement of LP Gas and
electricity as "probably the only way" to get the emissions down low enough.
And nobody said anything??

If we do not discuss this, does that mean that we accept it?   What about
these issues:

1.  Probably biogas (from wet biomass) is sufficiently clean?

2.  Can the TLUD and other gasifiers stoves make the cut-off because they
are gas-burning stoves that make their own gases, that is, they are
"gas-like" in operations?   And funding to determine if this can happen?

3.  Other technologies related to solid fuels for cooking, (including coal
as mentioned by Crispin in other messages)?

4.  AND what about the socio-economic impracticality to expect that
impoverished people who depend on wood and other solid fuels will be able to
sustainably obtain LPG and electricity within multiple generations?   Move
them up to the top of the energy ladder right away, or simply neglect them
for additional decades while the affluent world decides what assistance is
given to whom?  

5.  And a big issue:   Are we making the many efforts for better cookstoves
ONLY because of health?   What about deforestation and fuel efficiency?
and CO2 increases?    and safety from burns?    and development of other
biomass fuels / semi-processed biomass from "refuse" and low-value stems,
etc.?

6.  Should the GACC and other organizations pull out of their support for
solid-fuel-stoves?   

I am certain that Kirk Smith and the GACC and others have the best interests
of all in mind.   But in light of the recent scientific and health findings,
what should be the future of biomass stoves?

I will contribute to this discussion as appropriate, but I am not going to
get into any individualized debates.   So please direct your comments to
EVERYONE.   Feel free to adjust the Subject line to reflect your "flavor" of
reply, because there are SOOOOO many different aspects to the topics at
hand, and we should soon have a few different threads of messages.

And remember that this week, Thurs 20 Nov, is the big GACC meeting in New
York City.   I have been assured by the organizers that it will have live
broadcast via Internet, so we can all listen to the high powered
presentations that day.   Will any speaker comment on this latest
interpretation of what constitutes "sufficiently clean" regarding
cookstoves?   And at the Friday private meeting for the pledging of funding
for further clean-cookstove efforts, will the funds flow for LPG and
electricity?

What is the future of biomass stoves?

Paul





Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD  
Email:     
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com> 



-------- Original Message -------- 


Subject: 

[stove and LF Annals] Historical watershed


Date: 

Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:59:05 -0800


From: 

Kirk R. Smith  <mailto:krksmith at berkeley.edu> <krksmith at berkeley.edu>


Reply-To: 

krksmith at berkeley.edu <mailto:krksmith at berkeley.edu> 


To: 

Kirk R. Smith  <mailto:Krksmith at berkeley.edu> <Krksmith at berkeley.edu>



Beginning this week, for the first time in human history, it will no longer
be possible to claim a stove is truly "improved" or "clean" without
reference to authoritative global set of health-based guidelines..

WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY: HOUSEHOLD FUEL COMBUSTION, World
Health Organization, Geneva, 2014

This is the third, and last currently planned, volume from WHO on IAQ, the
first two being on selected individual pollutants
http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/9789289002134/en/ and dampness and
mold http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/7989289041683/en/.  This last
one is at http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/en/ and also on my
website below.  It is the result of 3+ years of work by an international
expert committee and many peer reviewers including a year-long internal WHO
process of quality checking and reframing to be consistent with other WHO
guideline documents,

This third volume is a bit different in its recommendations than most other
WHO guidelines in that it does not develop new exposure/concentration
guidelines for the critical pollutants themselves, but takes these for CO
from the previous IAQ document on Selected Pollutants and for PM2.5 from the
2005 WHO Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs) ---
http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/outdoorair_aqg/en/    In
addition to extensive reviews of the literature, this new document presents
recommended guidelines for indoor emissions limits that will keep a large
fraction of households below the AQGs themselves for CO and PM2.5.  As there
are wide ranges of household sizes, ventilation rates, and cooking patterns,
it specifies limits in a probabilistic manner using a Monte Carlo model,
e.g., to keep 90% of household below the AQG, the emissions needs to be
below X, for 50% they need to be below y.  

Notably, this document formalizes what was only stated conceptually in the
2005 AQGs, which is that the guidelines should apply in every
non-occupational micro-environment where people spend significant time --
indoor or outdoor.

The document also addresses chimney stoves as well as having sections on
coal and kerosene as household fuels -- discouraging both because of
apparent extra toxicities.

The quantitative recommendations will be a challenge to the biomass stove
community in that, in keeping with the health evidence, truly low emission
rates of unvented stoves will be needed to protect health adequately.  We
firmly hope that the ongoing process of creating stove standards under the
ISO process will adopt these recommendations, as was agreed previously..  I
might add in this context, that newer evidence since 2005 on the health
effects of combustion air pollution, as for example found in the latest
Global Burden of Disease estimates, would indicate that when the next
revision of the AQGs is done (as now planned), the limits will become even
lower.  The stove community thus should probably therefore consider what
this document recommends as likely to tighten further over time.

Congratulations to the whole expert group and particularly Nigel Bruce,
Heather Adair-Rohani, and Carlos Dora at WHO-Geneva for moving it through
from start to finish.. Best/k  

Below is from the Executive Summary, the full version being in the report
and available separately on the WHO website
www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc
<http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc> 

Overview

Almost 3 billion of the world's poorest people still rely on solid fuels
(wood,
animal dung, charcoal, crop wastes and coal) burned in inefficient and
highly
polluting stoves for cooking and heating, currently resulting in some 4
million
premature deaths annually among children and adults from respiratory and
cardiovascular
diseases, and cancer. Together with widespread use of kerosene stoves
and lamps, these household energy practices also cause many deaths and
serious
injuries from scalds, burns and poisoning. The use of solid fuel for heating
in more developed countries is also common and contributes significantly to
air
pollution exposure. Air pollution from household fuel combustion is the most
important global environmental health risk today.

These new guidelines bring together the most recent evidence on fuel use,
emission and human exposure levels, health risks, intervention impacts and
policy
considerations, to provide practical recommendations to reduce this health
burden, which build on existing WHO air quality guidelines for specific
pollutants
(AQG). Implementation of these recommendations will also help secure
the additional benefits to society, development and the environment
including
climate  that will result from wider access to clean, safe and efficient
household
energy.

Drawing on a broad range of newly commissioned, or recently published,
systematic reviews of the scientific literature, the guidelines apply strict
criteria
for assessing the quality of available evidence and the suitability for
developing
recommendations. Among the key findings is that for several important health
outcomes, including child acute respiratory infections, exposure to the key
pollutant  fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 needs to be brought down to low
levels in order to gain most of the health benefit. The other main finding
is that
most of the solid fuel interventions promoted in recent years have not even
come
close to these levels when in everyday use, and there is a need for much
more
emphasis on accelerating access to clean household fuels.

The recommendations focus particular attention on reducing emissions of
pollutants as much as possible, while also recognizing the importance of
adequate
ventilation and information and support for households to ensure best use of
technologies and fuels. They encompass general considerations for policy, a
set
of four specific recommendations, and a good practice recommendation for
addressing both health and climate impacts. The general considerations
address
issues such as the need for community-wide action, as pollution from one
house
or other source affects neighbours, and vice-versa, and the fact that safety
of new
fuels and technologies cannot be assumed and must be assessed. 

The specific recommendations address the following:

. Emission rate targets which specify the levels of emissions from household
energy fuels and technologies that pose minimal health risks, and which are
designed to guide assessment of how well various interventions can meet the
air quality concentrations specified in WHO guidelines;
. Policies for the period of transition from current practices to
community-wide
use of clean fuels and household energy technologies, recognizing that
intermediate
steps will be needed for some time to come among lower income and
more rural homes reliant on solid fuels;
. The need to avoid the use of unprocessed coal as a household fuel, in
light of
the specific health risks;
. The need to avoid the use of kerosene as a household fuel, in light of
concerns
about emissions and safety.

The good practice recommendation encourages policy makers to recognize
that many of the pollutants from household fuel combustion lead to both
health
risks and climate change.

The guidelines are targeted at public health policy-makers and specialists
working with the energy, environment and other sectors to develop and
implement
policy to reduce the adverse health impacts of household fuel combustion.
This publication is linked to ongoing work by WHO and its partners to
provide
technical support for implementation of the recommendations, as well as
monitoring progress and evaluating programme impacts, for example, through
the WHO database on household fuel combustion. Further details of the
guidance,
tools and other resources are available on the guidelines web pages:
<http://> http://
www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc
<http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc> .

Rationale for these guidelines
Household air pollution (HAP) released by inefficient combustion of solid
fuels
for cooking and heating is currently responsible for the world's largest
single
environmentally-related disease burden. It has been calculated that
household
air pollution released during cooking causes around 4 million premature
deaths
(1, 2). WHO estimates that household air pollution caused 4.3 million deaths
in
2012 (3). A further 0.4 million deaths are linked to the contribution HAP
makes
to ambient (outdoor) air pollution (2). Added to this, but as yet not
quantified due
to lack of sufficient research and weaker evidence, are deaths and disease
from
HAP derived from heating and lighting.

Use of inefficient fuels for household heating, cooking and lighting also
puts
household members, particularly children, at high risk of being burned (e.g.
as
a result of falling into fires, spilled fuel, etc.) and poisoning (caused by
ingesting
kerosene). While HAP from household fuel combustion is less serious in more
developed countries, it remains an issue in settings where solid fuel
(mainly wood
and other biomass) and kerosene are used for heating.
T
o date, there have been no health-based guidelines with recommendations
for policy to address this issue. Growing recognition that access to modern
household energy is critical for the achievement of health, development and
environmental
(including climate) goals, has led to several ambitious United Nations
(UN) and government-led initiatives to secure universal access to modern
household
energy over the next 15-20 years.

Against this background, it is important to have guidelines available to
ensure
that the potentially large health benefits of investment in, and policy for,
household
energy are realized.




Kirk R. Smith, MPH, PhD
Professor of Global Environmental Health, University of California, Berkeley
(Fulbright-Nehru Distinguished Chair (2013/14), Indian Institute of
Technology-Delhi)
Delhi cell: (91) 97-1641-6091 [note new number]
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/




 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141117/3877d491/attachment.html>