[Stoves] Clean coal burning stoves Re: History of clean Chinese stove development.

Tue Sep 15 11:07:40 CDT 2015

Hi Paul,

I am no expert on emissions from coal that are not burned up in a stove.
Here are some scary paragraphs from the WHO Indoor Air Guidelines booklet:

A6.1 Assessment of the quality of the evidence

Three areas of evidence were assessed for quality: • carcinogenicity of
emissions from household use of coal • health risks from incomplete
combustion of coal • toxic contaminants

A6.1.1 Carcinogenicity

Carcinogenicity of household use of coal was reviewed by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, (1), using standard assessment
methodology involving review of exposure data, studies of cancer in humans,
studies of cancer in experimental animals, and mechanistic and other
relevant data. It was concluded that for household use of coal:

 • There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of
household combustion of coal. Household combustion of coal causes cancer of
the lung.

• There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the
carcinogenicity of emissions from combustion of coal.

 • There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the
carcinogenicity of extracts from coal-derived soot.

It is noted that the type of coal used by households in most, if not all,
of the epidemiological studies in this assessment, was raw (unprocessed)1
coal. The overall evaluation concluded that indoor emissions from household
combustion of coal are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). This evidence was
assessed as being of high quality.

A6.1.3 Toxic contaminants -

Review 8 identified studies reporting on health effects of five toxic
contaminants in coal, arsenic, fluorine, selenium, mercury and lead. These
studies provide evidence on toxin content of coals, combustion and
emissions chemistry, exposure routes (i.e. food, air, water), air pollution
and exposure levels, and health impacts. Of the contaminants, the risks and
effects of arsenic and fluorine are the two most comprehensively
investigated and reported. Most of the evidence on the effects of
contaminants derives from studies in China. The assessment of evidence for
health risks from toxic contaminants of coal was based on an overall
evaluation of the available studies covering all of the aspects noted
above.

The data obtained on the content of toxic contaminants in coal, the fact
that these are not destroyed on combustion, measurements of toxins in air
and food (which are the main routes of exposure), and some dose
measurements (e.g. in blood) strongly indicate that use of contaminated
coals in the home puts members of the household at risk.

Best,

Dean

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> Dear ALL,                                                           (post
> to drtlud.com website)
>
> EVERYONE should carefully read Crispin's message (below).  I cannot
> substantiate his comments about specific stoves, and we will hope that
> Prof. Lloyd will send references about the Scotch Method.
>
> Otherwise, I am IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH CRISPIN.   Read each line, soak it
> in.
>
> Concerning the stoves in Mongolia, of course I am delighted that:
>
> all but one of them is a TLUD.
>
> But that is not the issue.   The issue is that low grade coal is able to
> be burned cleanly in sufficiently inexpensive cookstoves for the climate
> and culture.  Note that those Mongolian stoves have an important function
> for household heating, helping to justify the higher costs of stoves with
> heavier metal.  The probable financial assistance ("subsidy" to the
> purchaser) can be justified in the clean air accomplishments that benefit
> not just the impoverished people, but also all of the wealthy who want
> clean air both locally and internationally (global air quality issues are
> important).
>
> The Mongolian stoves are not being proclaimed as being for tropical areas
> where the stove constructions and costs need to be different.
>
> About coal as fuel for stoves and home heaters:  Coal needs to be included
> in the fuels for cookstoves WHEN COUPLED WITH CLEAN-BURNING STOVES.  When
> that is the case, the only major "negative characteristic" is that coal is
> a fossil fuel (being carbon positive to the atmosphere).   Well, that also
> applies to LPG !!!!  which is a very highly regarded fuel for clean
> cookstoves.   Double standards are not acceptable.   This issue needs to be
> addressed!!!
>
> And it should be addressed at least by the time of the GACC Forum in Ghana
> on 10 -13 Nov where a resolution or statement or declaration (or whatever
> groups do) could be officially made about the acceptability of coal as a
> cookstove fuel WHEN USED IN CLEAN-BURNING STOVES.
>
> None of the above is against fan-assisted stoves or natural draft TLUDs.
> Instead, the effort is to  get coal and the *appropriate *coal-burning
> stoves added to the list of contributing solutions to the world's cookstove
> problems.
>
> Comments please to the Stoves Listserv.
>
> 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 9/14/2015 10:45 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Paul
>
> That linked document has this to say: “For biomass cooking, pending
> further evidence from the field, significant health benefits are possible
> only with the highest quality fan gasifier stoves…”
>
>
>
> I don’t know who invented that idea – it is traceable to Kirk Smith
> (Bangkok, Nov 2010) but I think the concept that ‘the only really clean
> stoves are fan assisted gasifiers’ is older than that. Maybe it emerged
> from Berkeley. It doesn’t matter.
>
>
>
> It is not true.
>
> Is that clear enough? How else can we say it? It is not true that the only
> really clean stoves are fan assisted gasifiers. This caution is also
> contained in the statement, “It is not true that the only really clean
> stoves are fan assisted or ND TLUD pyrolysers.”
>
> The most expensive externally funded improved stove replacement programme
> in the world is the Mongolian urban ger stove programme, funded by the
> US-based MCC through the MCA-Mongolia account, the WB, the Asian
> Development Bank and the City Government of Ulaanbaatar. There are a large
> number of additional players including Xaas Bank, carbon trading funders
> and national Ministries.
>
> Assiduously examining a large number of stove options, and creating an
> advanced testing laboratory on a shoe string, incorporating a test method
> that predicts reasonably the field performance (field testing proved to be
> nearly impossible, even for LBNL, which tried hard) a set of stoves that
> are well over 90% cleaner than the baseline stoves (several >98%) was
> selected for distribution. Not one of them is fan assisted and not one of
> them is a pyrolyser save in the sense that all coal stoves are pyrolysers.
> Certainly it is true that all solid fuel stoves are gasifiers. Quibbling
> will not change the fact flames burn gas.
>
> A lot of people worked hard to bring this together and pull off the
> biggest clean-up of a major city’s air ever accomplished without changing
> the fuel – because the fuel was *never *the problem. It is an excellent
> fuel and burns so cleanly the stove comparison chart would have to create
> two more tiers to fairly accommodate them. The fact that this achievement
> is still ignored continues to stain the ICS community. The reason for this
> is obvious: coal is supposed to be the demon fuel that cannot be burned
> cleanly. Millions of people are going to burn coal for a long time to come
> – deal with it. Burn it properly.
>
> These super-clean stoves originate from Turkey, China and Mongolia. The
> producers pay no attention to anything going on in the “TLUD world”, even
> though all but one of them is a TLUD.  It is unfortunate that the fictions
> that “solid fuels cannot be burned cleanly”, and “only fans work”, and
> “coal cannot be burned cleanly” because it contains “pollution” are
> repeated by those who should know their field better.  Making these
> statements makes the speaker look like a disconnected amateur. Modern
> Austrian fireplaces are cleaner than most very improved stoves and they are
> made of brick for heaven’s sake. They are not even ‘stoves’. The Russians
> are building ‘bell’ heat exchangers that are brilliant.
>
> The IC stove community has to start living in the present.
>
> Here is a test of the laboratory air at the SEET lab and the emissions of
> a cross draft stove (currently reproduced exactly by a small local welding
> shop in Ulaanbaatar):
>
> [[ Image deleted from copy of message.]]
>
> These two Dusttraks were compared with each other before this photo was
> taken. They agreed within 2 micrograms at a concentration of more than
> 400.  The one on the left is brand new, brought by LBNL (Berkeley)
> measuring the ambient air (195 µg/m3) and the one on the right is from
> SEET Lab sampling directly from the chimney (0 µg/m3). *That *is a clean
> stove. The dirty air going into the stove is being cleaned by the fire,
> while burning wet lignite: 50% volatiles (AD) and 26% moisture.
>
> It is high time to admit that coal and indeed wood can be burned by a
> number of methods extremely well.  No fuel has a monopoly on cleanliness.
> The concept of a ‘dirty fuel’ is archaic and was never correct. It was
> always a misconception.
>
> Equally incorrect is the idea that ethanol, for example, is a ‘clean
> fuel’. I have just seen a test of an ethanol stove that doesn’t come close
> to meeting the South African kerosene stove test requirement at high power
> or low. This is quite common. Most ethanol stoves are not very clean when
> it comes to CO. They literally can’t hold a candle to the stoves sold in
> Ulaanbaatar that burn lignite. Why? Bad combustion.
>
> What’s next? China of course. And India. Why should their stove programmes
> be held back by errant preconceptions originating within the ‘clean air’
> and ‘clean stove’ communities? If the clean air and clean stove communities
> can’t keep up with reality, others will step in to lead. Projects are not
> going to be willing to spend $50m on junk science claims. Or $500m.
>
> Paul, you are correct to ask for references. The method of burning coal
> “TLUD” is called the ‘Scotch Method’ in South African and goes back over a
> century. I believe Prof Lloyd has some sources for that because he was
> thinking about the problem in the mid-70’s.
>
> Regards to all
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
> In case you have not seen this, micro-gasifiers have received some significant recognition (ESMAP + GACC 2015 publication, page 90).
>
> https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf
>
>  “*The most exciting technology trend in the biomass cookstove sector is*
>
> *the growing range of forced draft and natural draft gasifier stoves*.  These stoves have shown the greatest
>
> potential to improve health and environmental outcomes, at least under
>
> laboratory conditions.”  (ESMAP 2015, p. 90).
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email addressstoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web pagehttp://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/
>
>
>

-- 
Dean Still
Executive Director
Aprovecho Research Center
PO Box 1175
76132 Blue Mountain School Road
Cottage Grove, OR 97424
(541) 767-0287
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20150915/880ebdba/attachment.html>