[Stoves] The future of biomass stoves. was...Fwd: [stove and LF Annals] Historical watershed
Bamboo Science Group
greg at bamboosciencegroup.com
Tue Nov 18 16:33:00 CST 2014
'Don't Let Perfect Be The Enemy Of Good'
In reading Philip Lloyd's post I was reminded of the above aphorism
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 3:04 PM, "plloyd at mweb.co.za" <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
>
> The mysterious belief in a number to define a safe condition needs questioning. First, does the homeowner have any way of checking that he meets this arbitrary standard? Does some Government official in a stressed economy possess an instrument that will allow him to check on indoor air quality? Even if he has, does he have any legal right to do such a check? I do not think clean cookstoves should mean first-world clean. A 95% reduction in particulates would mean a huge improvement in living standards; to hope that one could achieve 99.9% would be to chase the unattainable. Just remember - Britain solved most of its air pollution problems by banning visible smoke. It was easy to police, and it was relatively easy to implement. Those are surely virtues for which clean stove developers should strive.
> Philip Lloyd
> Energy Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology
> From: psanders at ilstu.edu
> Sent: 2014/11/17 08:04:47 PM
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org,wastemin1 at verizon.net,krksmith at berkeley.edu
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [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: psanders at ilstu.edu
> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website: 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
> Reply-To: krksmith at berkeley.edu
> To: Kirk R. Smith
>
> 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
>
> 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://
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141118/1208f12b/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list