[Stoves] The future of biomass stoves. was...Fwd: [stove and LF Annals] Historical watershed
Musungu Wycliffe Nabutola
reecon at mitsuminet.com
Wed Nov 26 07:10:33 CST 2014
Dear Richard and All,
In Kenya we have developed a number of plastic biogas plants. The first one
was developed by me working closely with an organisation called Kentainers
that produces rotor moulded water tanks. I did some work to identify the
alternative feed stock to cow dung. This was to try and bring the size of
the biogas plant down to the 1m3 size that Dr. Karve had discussed. I
indentified oil cake and even molasses as alternative feeds. I later
reported the same to Kentainers. Using food waste and any starch source is
properbly the best option. But in Kenya that runs directly into competition
with food for the people.
We, me and Kentainers, decided to focus on cow dung. We have produced a
number of Biogas plants that generate very little gas from the size that we
have now. I even developed a fixed dome Biogas plant for Kentainers, but
they preferred to develop the floating drum type.
They are presently marketing the plant, but it is still not performing very
well. Some other fellows started working with the other plastic companies
like Rotor and produced some biogas plants but all of them are still working
but very poorly.
I am still working on that component. At Kentainers we even had a 10,000 Ltr
and 23,000 Ltr. Biogas plants. They are running on cow dung only.
Thank you,
Musungu Wycliffe.
Reecon.
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Stanley
Sent: 25 November 2014 06:22
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] The future of biomass stoves. was...Fwd: [stove and LF
Annals] Historical watershed
Ndugu Msungu,
Tafadali, take a look at the advanced work done by fello stover Dr AD KArve
with reseoct to biogas source material. He is proposing and demosntratign
aily over a wide area , theutitlity of utilising food and plant wastes iwhic
in your case for masaainni, greatly agumeting cow dung.
His site is ARTI pune India google such and enjoy a great increase in
efficiency and the lowering of the capital cost of your efforts.
Richard Stanley
www.legacyfound.org
On Nov 21, 2014, at 4:45 AM, reecon at mitsuminet.com wrote:
Dear All,
I have been working on an alternative line of cooking and also wealth
creation. My approach has been to encourage construction of large communal
Biogas plants that can produce Biogas for use in a number of houses and also
to run generators for power supply. The electricity should be used for
running chillers (This ones can be installed by the milk processing company)
to enable the pastoralists to preserve and get income from their milk that
is presently going bad.
A borehole can also be drilled in the area to allow for water to be made
available by use of the same electricity. A hospital, shops and even other
small businesses can be started because of the electricity.
Such projects can be funded by the local people if they see a sample site.
The use of Biogas has a number of advantages; clean fuel (but left on its
own very destructive, about 25 times the effect of CO2), very low emissions.
avoidance of GHGs and also reduced IAP. In specific areas that i am looking
at especially among the Masai and the other pastoralists (Cow dung is very
much available), it will also contribute to health through removal of cow
dung that is a breeding ground for flies that carry diseases. The future of
empowering the households is acceptably alternative fuels, i.e Biogas,
Ethanol and also TLUD.
I think the parameters and combinations of primary air and secondary air and
heat value make the solid biomass fuels rather cumbersome and as someone has
mentioned demanding a very specific know how.
Thanks,
Musungu Wycliffe
Kajiado, Kenya.
_____
From: "Raman P" <raman03 at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 7:08:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] The future of biomass stoves. was...Fwd: [stove and LF
Annals] Historical watershed
Dear All,
This is in continuation to the mails on the subject of " future of biomass
stoves.
Larger population adopts biomass as fuel for cooking is not only because
they are locally available but also they are the cheaper option. Clean
combustion cooking solution is important without a major change on fuel
source and cost. Biomass driven fuels like producer gas or pyrolysis oil can
be considered to have clean combustion cookstoves, which can meet the
standards of lowered limit.
To use the producer gas, there is a need for technology development, which
includes hydrogen enrichment (through steam gasification) and removal of CO
(through PSA).
To use the pyrolysis oil, there is a needed on development of small scale
pyrolyser and suitable cookstoves for clean burning of the pyrolysis oil.
In addition to the process of lowering the limits, it is equally important
to make sure that alternative solutions are in place. Issues related to the
affordability and supply chain management also need to be taken in account
when there is a major shift in choice of cookstoves.
It may not be appropriate to drop the option of developing clean combustion
cookstove (which burns solid fuel), just because it was not developed so
far, to meet the standards. Research and development of clean combustion
cookstove designs, to meet the desired performance level, should be
prioritized.
With best regards
P Raman, Ph.D
With Best Regards,
P Raman
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:34 PM, 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
reviewerstated 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 <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
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
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.
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/
_______________________________________________
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/20141126/22397ff6/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list