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

Dean Still deankstill at gmail.com
Tue Nov 18 17:12:18 CST 2014


Dear Paul,

I think about Don O'Neal (HELPS) reminding us that chimneys should be used
on all stoves that might be used indoors year after year at ETHOS.  I think
that you and I would agree that even really clean burning stoves, like the
TLUD, top loaded fan, and side loaded fan stoves, can emit harmful amounts
of PM and CO in kitchens, especially with wet fuel, etc.

I just read the WHO publication and I didn't find anything unusual in it.
TLUDs, top loaded, and side loaded fan stoves easily meet the WHO
intermediate PM guideline (with chimneys) in lab tests. The three stoves
even meet the guideline for CO without chimneys.

Yes, semi-clean burning stoves do not protect health mostly because such a
small amount of PM is harmful. But, hasn't this been common knowledge for
quite a while?

The WHO recommendations include all stove options most appropriate to the
various situations. Graphs show biomass stoves being used far into the
future. Even switching to LPG doesn't work by itself when other stoves are
still in use. The solution is still in the effectiveness of the
intervention.

Common sense supports LPG as a great way to cook.

Adding chimneys protects health in Europe, the US, etc.

 Because a little bit of smokes damages health, acceptable levels of PM in
kitchens are really, really low.

I think that we are getting there with really clean combustion in biomass
stoves. Unfortunately, the health studies are still using biomass stoves
that do not meet the WHO guidelines. We need to get the super clean stoves
with chimneys into studies and into homes where health will be protected.

The WHO publication assumes that the chimneys will leak a lot of smoke into
the room. We need better chimney interventions, etc.

There's a lot of progress to be accomplished but the WHO household
guidelines seem to be 'middle of the road' to me.

Best,

Dean

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

>  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 <krksmith at berkeley.edu> <krksmith at berkeley.edu>  Reply-To:
> krksmith at berkeley.edu  To: Kirk R. Smith <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
>
>
>
> *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/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141118/2fce3aa8/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list