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

Wed Sep 16 02:53:51 CDT 2015

Dear Paul

You make a number of good points and raise interesting questions.

First the CO2 thing: The improve stoves burn about 30-40% less coal to
provide the same amount of heat. I can't prove people don't lead more
comfortable lives by living warmer. If they don't then the CO2 reduction is
30-40%, or about 400,000 tons per year. It is a drop in the bucket. I don't
begrudge people their warm hearth.

3.  An impoverished household in Mongolia or elsewhere that can cook and
heat cleanly (health-wise) with coal is another truly small fish regarding
its CO2 footprint.  

Exactly.  There is no room for fanaticism at forty below.

>We should not be working or advocating against them having coal-burning
stoves that are CLEAN for their health (CO2 is not poisonous).   

Correct.

>Crispin, do you have numbers (CO2, black carbon, methane, etc.) about the
climate impact of the new coal burners in comparison with the climate impact
of the old-style coal burners?   

I do not have methane numbers. Insignificant. BC, the % reduction is large
but BC is short lived anyway. The impact of P< is affected by the fact that
there is a lot of air pollution from the desert, roads, vehicles and
smoking. Having a smoker in the house is far worse than breathing heavily
polluted outdoor air (most people are not aware of that).

>How much better (lower climate impact)?   

Thar requires an impact assessment of the climate impact of CO2. The feeling
these days is that for a doubling of CO2 the global temperature will rise
about 0.6 to 0.9 degrees. That makes the impact of stoves miniscule, and the
difference for changing the stoves vanishingly small. My advice is, take the
CO2 money and run. Do something useful with it.

>Is that improvement not sufficient justification to stimulate (financially
bolster) the transition from the old to the new coal burners?   

It depends on the carbon market which is in poor shape.

5.  The GACC certainly embraces clean burning LPG and natural gas, and would
like to have clean-burning kerosene stoves.   

They explained their position last November and it appears to be the
immediate banning of coal and kerosene combustion, the early phasing out of
wood combustion and replacing them with LPG and electricity. I have not seen
any mention of natural gas.

>To leave LPG in and exclude coal is hypocrisy that must be addressed at the
GACC Forum in November.   Either all cleanly burned fossil fuels and their
stoves must be acceptable to the GACC, or no fossil fuels should be in the
GACC discussions and programs.  

Good luck with that. It depends on who you want to ignore you. 

>Fossil fuels with GOOD stoves are either ALL IN or art ALL OUT.  

To address that seriously, comprehensively, you would have to address the
issue of whether or not oil and natural gas really are fossil fuels and not
produced naturally in the Earth below critical depths. Then the whole CO2
thing. Gov Brown was on TV blaming the California fires on man-made global
warming. There is an El Nino going now (causing the drought). There is no
connection at all between CO2 and El Ninos. Do we want stove development and
project funding to be directed by something that shaky? I would rather have
less money but based on common sense and science. If CO2 becomes
unfashionable will we just jump on the next bandwagon?

>At the Forum, certainly the World Bank and other financial backers of the
Mongolia success will be advocating for coal to be included, along with the
attendees from Mongolia.    

It is politically incorrect to talk about coal. It is far more likely whole
populations will just carry using what they have available. I would like
them to use it very efficiently and cleanly. That is not going to happen
without significant interventions. 

>.All in or all out!!!    Or does climate change trump family health?

Here below is what a rare reader of this list said yesterday on that
subject. It is someone who wishes to remain anonymous. Their position is
that the stove community is filled with nutters and have manifestly failed
to bring much benefit to anyone. This is a voice from the professional world
of developmental health. A lot of people are fed up with the claims made by
stove programs. They have seen the money flow and the lack of delivery and
impact. 

Brace yourself

Crispin

+++++++

Do you think there is an incentive in public health departments of the [PC]
variety to show that some coals are inherently better than others? Check
into some mining schools or an OTA publication Direct Use of Coal, 1978. The
stover community is by and large the "renewable biomass" zealots. They
worship trees, and demonize coal. They found soulmates in the California
Cowboys on energy and health when Shell Foundation organized Household
Energy and Health chatter in Jul-Sept 2001. They will next claim that water
boiling tests in Bangladesh confirm that uncontrolled water vapor is toxic
because it has Arsenic in it. 

Napoleon supposedly said "Do not rush to ascribe to conspiracy that which
mere stupidity would suffice to explain." Upon calm reflection, it is
obvious that Napoleon only advised us not to rush. Do not be content with
ascribing to stupidity that which stinks to high heaven of conspiracy.

Coal will survive longer than wood in many areas of the developing world so
long as there are miners. Wood isn't cheap. Land, water and labor
opportunity costs are high. Also, it is a ludicrous assumption that just a
battery of hi-falutin' tests and fancy pronouncements from Berkeley,
Washington, and Geneva would convince "nations" to ban coal and switch to
wood. Ain't happening in India in the next 30 years. While these Neros burn
Rome, er wood, in their stoves, cooks will be playing fiddle. 

Any presentations that mass adoption of superduper woodstoves will save 200
million lives (over the next 50 years, taking into account higher fertility
rates and longevity increments at the bottom of the pyramid) are mere
infomercials for the gullible. I fail to understand such debates as this are
even taking place. Confirms my decades old suspicion that the stover
community itself is "indoor air pollution" - huddling in a room, closing
doors and windows, ignoring chemistry and culture alike, because they have
to save the trees, or now the people. They didn't save many trees, wouldn't
save many people (if at all, continue to recruit new converts, offering PhDs
in return). 

Forty years of failure - improved woodstoves. Forty more years? Our
daughters deserve better.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20150916/89442a91/attachment.html>