[Stoves] Clean coal burning stoves Re: History of clean Chinese stove development.
rwhongser at web.de
Mon Sep 21 06:18:13 MDT 2015
evidently you agree with cold-war era soviet scientists that coal and
oil and natural gas all come from non-biological chemical origins?
Ronald von Schwarzkohlebayern
On 16.09.2015 21:40, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> Paul and list:
> 1. I mostly agree with everything you say below. But mostly for
> reasons of wanting to save our valuable time, I now ask that this list
> stop talking about coal stoves. Biomass only stoves would be in
> accordance with the way we started up almost 20 years ago (as the
> first list coordinator, I think I wrote that sentence - which I gave a
> few days ago). It is worse than that we are wasting people’s time,
> with only one person ever bringing up coal and coal stove topics.
> 2. There was a concluding sentence in a Crispin message this AM whose
> origin is masked by Crispin that I find more offensive that the
> generally offensive material above it. If Crispin didn’t write these
> four pro-coal paragraphs and this sentence,
> /“Forty years of failure - improved //wood stoves. Forty more years?
> Our daughters deserve better.//”/
> we deserve to know who did. And we can get rid of such trash with the
> understanding that offenders will have all their material reviewed
> before going out. Policing is not difficult.
> 3. . What is worse that we get totally erroneous denier-based
> non-stove pro-coal arguments - that too many list members are apt to
> believe. I am particularly incensed by Crispin’s ludicrous statement
> from this AM:
> /The feeling these days is that for a doubling of CO2 the global
> temperature will rise about 0.6 to 0.9 degrees./
> A scientific rebuttal by a full time topic expert is at
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/challenges-constraining-climate-sensitivity.html ,
> showing Crispin is off by a factor of about 5. I’m sure Crispin
> strongly believes that the world’s largest ever scientific study
> (IPCC’s AR5) is dead wrong. So wrong he needn’t give a cite for the
> view from his own “Science” circle. I find this type of error so
> often I basically now disbelieve Crispin. This include his assertion
> that char produced in char-making stoves should receive no credit
> unless burned in that stove. How many dozens of list hours have been
> wasted on that topic - which I believe comes from a denier position?
> 4. There are plenty of options available. If Crispin started a
> coal-stove list, I would attempt to join. I presume there should be
> some existing list that can serve the claimed need. I reject the idea
> that Crispin wrote today: “/Change the purpose of the list so that
> the needs of hundreds of millions of ordinary people are not
> abandoned.//”, /since I can’t recall any such guidance ever going in
> the coal-using direction from this list.
> 5. Re the other items in your list, see inserts below
> On Sep 15, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu
> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>> Ron, (to website)
>> You make good points. But the devil is in the details, or in the
>> realities of our world.
>> 1. If the monitors of the Stoves Listserv want to enforce the
>> definition that we can only discuss biomass fuels and related stoves,
>> I will comply. However, until such a ruling is debated and stated
>> clearly, I contend that writing and talking about coal as a cookstove
>> fuel is informative and we all need to be aware of its pros and cons,
>> as well as the occasional mentions of LPG and kerosene (paraffin).
>> See more below.
> *RWL1: I am only concerned about coal - as the others can be made
> from biomass. Absoluely we should debate, but there is an existing
> rule already in place - that is being violated.*
>> 2. As much as I agree with you and the EPA on the issues of climate
>> change and CO2 increases in the atmosphere (being bad), there are
>> very very very few of us (off grid, etc, etc.) in the developed
>> countries who do not have a positive (bad) CO2 footprint every day.
>> By sending an email from Illinois, I use electricity that has some
>> mix of power that comes from fossil fuels. The EPA will leave me
>> alone. They should be after the big fish who emit much CO2.
> *[RWL2: Disagree. We have to move towards 100% RE. I of course
> fail also, but we must try. And Illinois will have to honor the CPP -
> and you will be responsible soon for less pollution - and you should
> be proud of that fact. And the costs need not increase.*
>> 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. We should not be working or advocating
>> against them having coal-burning stoves that are CLEAN for their
>> health (CO2 is not poisonous). That is so, especially while we
>> affluent folks run around in automobiles and heat much larger homes
>> to probably warmer temperatures and also lavish ourselves with air
>> conditioning, with so much energy derived from fossil fuels.
> *[RWL3: Agree CO2 is not poisonous - but that from fossil fuels (and
> 100 ppm already in the atmosphere) is a pollutant. We can demonstrate
> CO2 reductions, and they can/must help as well. This is what COP21 is
> all about - and I believe 193 countries will be agreeing that we have
> to do it - painful though it is. It is worse if we delay. I have
> my doubts that the world’s dirtiest city is going to become acceptable
> without getting off coal.*
>> 4. One household is one small amount of CO2 that could be justified,
>> but would 100,000 households be a different story? Or 10 MILLION
>> households, as could easily be the case if China turned to using the
>> new coal-stove design now in use in Mongolia? That could be a lot of
>> CO2 increase. But it would be a lot of CO2 if those became LPG
>> burners. Fuel supply is crucial. We cannot deny people the
>> opportunity to cook their meals or warm their homes because
>> "acceptable renewable" fuels are not available. 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? How much better (lower climate
>> impact)? Is that improvement not sufficient justification to
>> stimulate (financially bolster) the transition from the old to the
>> new coal burners? Ron, could that improvement be the realistic
>> goal, or should the short term goal be the abolition of all coal
>> burning stoves?
> *[RWL4: Just as the Chinese have taken the global lead in PV, solar
> hot water, and wind - they will soon be leading in biochar and from
> char-making stoves. Yes the short-term goal should be abolition of
> coal-burning stoves. And the Chinese know they have to do it - and I
> congratulate them for their path (which can include improving their
> soils at the same time).*
>> 5. The GACC certainly embraces clean burning LPG and natural gas,
>> and would like to have clean-burning kerosene stoves. The GACC
>> /_*either*_/ must condemn those "advanced" fossil fuels and their
>> stoves *_OR _*embrace coal with clean-burning coal stoves. 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.
> *[RWL5: There are more choices than you have given. We know how to
> make bioliquids. If fossil carbon had the pollution price it should
> be bearing (about $40/tonne CO2 per many estimates), there would be no
> question about folks everywhere planting the trees we need for both
> carbon neutrality and carbon negativity. Big parts of China are
> already seeing such a tax. China has planted more trees than the rest
> of the world combined. They are flaring much straw still today. They
> are one of the last countries to need to use coal. Why wouldn’t they
> want to move away from coal-burning? Especially as they have already
> made commitments (with Obama) that are pushing other countries. China
> does not need coal stoves.*
> *I can understand Kirk Smith arguing for liquid fuels, but I am sure
> he would prefer bioliquids. The difference in cost between fossil
> and bio sources is insignificant, even when you ignore the fossil CO2
> *As Dean Still has said today, we can get there. I know there is a
> long way to go in improving char-making cook stoves, with way too
> little funding going towards this target. I see some good work coming
> along - finally.
>> We know (and are grateful) that leaders in the GACC and WB and EPA do
>> read the Stoves Listserv, although they seldom comment. The
>> comments in #5 above should have some reply by the end of October so
>> that the issue will be addressed at the November Forum, either with
>> or without GACC's agreement with #5. Fossil fuels with GOOD stoves
>> are either ALL IN or art ALL OUT. 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. Other supporters should be those who work with LPG,
>> natural gas, and kerosene, otherwise they face opposition to the
>> continued inclusion of those fuels in any GACC programs. To exclude
>> them would be like making them automatic Tier 1 or Tier 0 (bad)
>> stoves and fuels.
> *[RWL6: If GACC et al value carbon as is likely to come out of
> Paris, they won’t have to worry about prioritizing; they will
> emphasize renewables. It is time to give up on outdated, harmful
> technologies. Many large US firms put the pollution cost of carbon
> (such as the $40 above) - and then use the resulting savings against
> that target to do other right things. Since the EPA is the main
> agency behind the CPP (Clean Power Plan) - clearly anti-coal and
> pro-gas, they would be hypocritical to ignore the coal-bio difference
> with cook stoves.*
>> It will be interesting to see who rises to advocate exclusion of all
>> fossil fuels and stoves. Being selective of some and not other
>> fossil fuels is not allowed. All in or all out!!! Or does
>> climate change trump family health?
> *[RWL7: You need to explain this last question. We can improve both
> at the same time with the same stove hardware (and soil health).*
> *I have spent the last several days on the news that a Dutch Court
> recently told the Dutch government (after a case lasting many months)
> that it had to do a lot better than it was proposing in response to
> the EU agreements on CO2 reductions. They now have been ordered to
> reach 25% CO2 reduction by 2020 (and must appeal within about 10
> days). I suggest many other groups could face similar legal judgments
> - with the strong rationale that we know (per IPCC AR5) that this is
> the cheapest approach, with the most beneficial health impacts.
> Stoves are in no way exempt from this consensus science view. By
> 193 countries signing off, they have already admitted the truth behind
> fossil CO2 damage projections. Deniers can claim otherwise - but they
> have lost this battle.*
>> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu
>> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>> On 9/15/2015 1:33 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>>> Paul cc list
>>> Well - I have to disagree.
>>> Our EPA has declared that CO2 from all fossil fuels is a pollutant.
>>> That was held up in the US Supreme Court. Most of the world agrees
>>> that fossil fuel CO2 needs to be eliminated and that is what COP21
>>> in Paris is about.
>>> Per the latest IPCC documents, we have to get off all fossil
>>> fuels. And so I hope that GACC will stay away from endorsing any
>>> coal, oil, or natural gas consuming stove. Those fuels don’t need
>>> the help of this list or GACC. Biomass can supply all those forms
>>> of energy anyway - in most cases cheaper where biomass cook stoves
>>> are now in use.
>>>> Additionally the guiding words for this list emphasize it is for
>>>> biomass. [“_*Our site is dedicated to helping people develop
>>>> better stoves for cooking with biomass fuels in developing regions.”]*_
>>> On Sep 15, 2015, at 6:01 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Dear ALL, (post todrtlud.com <http://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.
>>>> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>>>> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu
>>>> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>>>> 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
>>>>> 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 (195µg/m^3 )
>>>>> and the one on the right is from SEET Lab sampling directly from
>>>>> the chimney (0µg/m^3 )./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
>>>>> In case you have not seen this, micro-gasifiers have received some significant recognition (ESMAP + GACC 2015 publication, page 90).
>>>>> “*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 address
>>>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
>>> 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
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>> Stoves mailing list
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> 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
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Stoves