[Stoves] Fwd: [stove] 30 years went by quickly
Frank Shields
franke at cruzio.com
Wed May 18 15:53:30 CDT 2016
Dear Roger,
Very well said.
The process goes from Fuel > to > Finished meal.
Not from Fuel > to > Clean air.
Clean air is one of many ‘conditions’ that must be met. There is no way of knowing if these clean stoves can actually cook a meal using real fuel. And because they are tested using dried lumber fuels and pellets - we do not really know if they are even clean.
Painful it is. I predict another ten years wasted. : (
Regards
Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
> On May 18, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Roger Samson <rogerenroute at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi Crispin, Paul and all
>
>
> Its unfortunate but the reality is the household cookstove movement is being driven by the "clean indoor air" agenda. Whatever happened to bottom up development, working with people to determine what their household cooking needs are? When our agency installs a low cost, locally built, cleaner burning REAP clay brick BIOMASS stove in West Africa even the men' face light up because they see the benefit of the technology for their families. Our clay brick stove uses less fuelwood, more fuel types, burns cleaner and is faster to cook. Its a major household energy system upgrade for that family. The sad part is that the stove doesn't meet the standard of the clean indoor air folks who are disconnected from the reality of poverty.
>
> Its just painful to watch the stove sector obsess over indoor air quality and put the lions share of the resources available on that issue. I think there should be push back. Biomass is going to remain the main fuel source (especially in rural areas) until all all other more important development priorities are met like hunger, health care, housing, schooling and clothing. In the LDC's its just complete nonsense to think they are moving to liquid biofuels, gas or electricity any time soon in rural areas.
>
> All those stove policy makers should spend a week in a rural household to understand how disconnected they are from the problem. We need appropriate solutions for the diverse household cooking needs and to make incremental progress. The great leap forward is just not going to happen. It didn't work very well for Chairman Mao and its not working for the stoves community.
>
>
> regards
>
> Roger Samson
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 5/17/16, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fwd: [stove] 30 years went by quickly
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2016, 10:41 PM
>
> #yiv6113175303
> #yiv6113175303 --
>
> _filtered #yiv6113175303 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
> _filtered #yiv6113175303 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
> 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
> _filtered #yiv6113175303 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2
> 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
> _filtered #yiv6113175303 {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
> #yiv6113175303
> #yiv6113175303 p.yiv6113175303MsoNormal, #yiv6113175303
> li.yiv6113175303MsoNormal, #yiv6113175303
> div.yiv6113175303MsoNormal
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;color:black;}
> #yiv6113175303 a:link, #yiv6113175303
> span.yiv6113175303MsoHyperlink
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
> #yiv6113175303 a:visited, #yiv6113175303
> span.yiv6113175303MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
> #yiv6113175303 pre
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;color:black;}
> #yiv6113175303 span.yiv6113175303HTMLPreformattedChar
> {font-family:Consolas;color:black;}
> #yiv6113175303 span.yiv6113175303EmailStyle19
> {color:windowtext;}
> #yiv6113175303 span.yiv6113175303EmailStyle20
> {color:#1F497D;}
> #yiv6113175303 .yiv6113175303MsoChpDefault
> {font-size:10.0pt;}
> _filtered #yiv6113175303 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt
> 72.0pt;}
> #yiv6113175303 div.yiv6113175303WordSection1
> {}
> #yiv6113175303 Thanks Paul
> Does this in some measure explain why
> Kirk has been saying for years that solid fuels cannot ever
> be burned cleanly enough to be used for
> cooking? It remains one of the strangest
> positions taken in the field of cooking stoves. It was
> repeated in 1999 and many times since. It has been taken up,
> with polite wording, by the GACC which frequently refers to
> ‘clean fuels and clean cooking solutions for people who
> have traditionally been forced to use solid fuels’ as if
> solid fuels are somehow inherently objectionable or
> ‘unclean’ (haram).
> The implication, as early on taken by
> Kirk, is that solid fuels somehow contain inherent emissions
> that cannot be done away with. Remember that quotation about
> the ‘combustion efficiency of fuels’, by type? I think
> that is the root idea behind ‘clean fuels’. There are
> ‘dirty fuels’ and ‘clean fuels’ in that world of
> thinking. There are also ‘clean stoves’ and ‘dirty
> stoves’ I suppose.
> Picture two testing teams operating
> two identical stoves with the same fuel in adjacent rooms.
> The results are very good – extremely low emissions. One
> team announces, “We have discovered a really clean
> fuel!” In the next room the other team announces, “We
> have discovered a really clean stove!”
>
> Obviously we have a problem accepting
> either claim. Only a combination of stove and fuel is clean,
> and even then, the way it is operated will still have an
> influence.
> So what is the motivation for saying
> that solid fuels cannot be burned cleanly enough to be used
> indoors? Why only liquid and gaseous fuels? I reported
> earlier the remarkably clean burning pellet stove made by a
> tiny workshop in Indonesia that has about ¼ of the PM
> emissions of an LPG stove. Is an Albasia pellet a biomass
> fuel or a biofuel? I think that ‘bio’ means ‘living’
> and that the pellets are the product of a living source –
> trees. In the UK they have power stations burning biofuels
> (wood pellets). Maybe they should be consulted.
> I agree that the use of terms passes
> through fashion and whim, and it is correct that the
> biofuels industry wants to be considered separately from
> everything else. It is a way of hogging the subsidies, if
> nothing else, with legislation requiring a certain amount of
> ‘biofuel capacity’ to be developed, then restricting it
> in a way that excludes the obvious: wood and agricultural
> waste pellets. Keeps the home fires burning for liquids, as
> it were. Recently I was sent a set of stove
> tests where the fuel burned was money – literally. Money
> pellets! That’s a pretty good idea, right? Instead of
> burning old money in a kiln, it is pelleted and sold as
> fuel. If it is really expensive, does it qualify as a
> biofuel in need of a subsidy, or is it plain old
> biomass? Paul, I would say that this stoves
> listserve, and in no small part your efforts to promote
> gasifiers, produced some of the cleanest burning stove
> products ever seen. As we know, bioethanol, bioparaffin,
> biodiesel, bio-plant oils, biomethanol – all can be burned
> cleanly under certain conditions, meaning they are not
> always seen to be doing that, but they can. I hold that the
> same is true for virtually all solid fuels. First they are
> rendered into liquids or directly to gases, then the gases
> are burned. All fires are gas fires.
> If we start using ‘biofuels’ only
> for non-solid energy carriers, are we not defeating the
> cause of clean combustion of wood and plant-based fuels?
> Wouldn’t that make it easier than it is now to demonise
> wood the way the West has demonised coal, still widely (and
> badly) burned in the East?
> I ask that because the campaign
> against solid fuels is so unreasonable, so unscientific.
> Rather than rejoicing at the discovery of new technologies
> and techniques that turn easily packaged solid fuels into
> combustible and clean burning gas, we observe repeated
> references to solid fuels being ‘not clean enough’, or
> even ‘will never be clean enough’ to be used for
> domestic energy.
> There is a new move afoot to develop
> another generation of coal burning stoves in Asia, possibly
> two. Testing recently (since the beginning of this year) at
> the BST Lab at CAU, we have seen a number of stoves that
> ‘go negative’ for a considerably portion of the burn
> time. Not as good as the best Mongolian stoves mind you, but
> pretty good. Refinement will improve these
> further. By ‘negative’ I mean they not
> only produce no PM2.5 part of the time, but they clean the
> air of background particles so their net impact is negative,
> presuming there is something in the background to remove.
> Thus I predict that within two years we will have coal
> burning and wood pellet burning stoves that are overall,
> negative for PM2.5 emissions during the whole burn including
> ignition, provided there is a WHO acceptable 50 micrograms
> of background PM2.5 available to clean from the combustion
> air. I think that is a pretty big
> accomplishment and it will owe a lot to this assemblage of
> stove enthusiasts when it happens. If the term
> ‘biofuels’ turns out to be used as a tool for demonising
> solid fuels, I think we should push back, citing examples of
> solid fuel combustors that match or even outperform liquid
> and gas burners.
> RegardsCrispin
> Stovers,
>
> The message below from Kirk Smith's Stove
> List (Not StoveS, and not a ListSERV where there is
> discussion) is interesting reading.
>
> He is totally correct that in America ( and
> probably Europe and elsewhere) the term "Biofuels"
> does NOT include dry biomass.
>
> American politicians refer to "renewable
> energy" as solar, wind and biofuels. They NEVER
> mention wood and other dry biomass for renewable energy.
> But so much of our energy needs is for thermal energy, even
> water heating at below boiling point.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Doc / Dr
> TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhDEmail: psanders at ilstu.eduSkype:
> paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072Website:
> www.drtlud.com
>
> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [stove] 30 years went by
> quicklyDate: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:27:40
> -0700From: Reply-To: To:
>
>
> “~30th Anniversary Edition” of
> Biofuels, Air Pollution and Health.
> Nearly 3 decades after publication
> of the first and still, I believe, only book laying out the
> major issues around what we now call household air
> pollution, it is available for free download in pdf – see
> below and on my website. It began to address most all of
> the issues we still struggle with except, perhaps, the
> climate angle, which I am coming to think in any case is a
> bit of a red herring even though we also introduced the
> concept of what is now called “co-benefits” and made the
> first measurements related to cookfuel/stoves in the early
> 1990s. Unfortunately, however, unthinking application
> of climate concerns now operates as a deterrent in some
> quarters to embracing truly clean cookfuel alternatives that
> have so much benefit to offer the very poorest
> populations. Note, I have long stopped using
> the term “biofuels” to mean biomass fuels, since
> biofuels now have come to mean liquid and gaseous fuels made
> from biomass in most of the world’s literature and
> media. Continued use of “biofuel” by some in our
> community now serves to confuse things I am afraid:
> biomass fuel is a perfectly reasonable term and nicely
> parallel to fossil fuel, but most importantly we cannot
> fight the now widely accepted use of the term “biofuel”,
> which describes fuels with entirely different
> characteristics/k Modern
> Perspectives in Energy, (originally published by Plenum,
> which was purchased by) Springer 1987, Biofuels, Air Pollution,
> and Health: A Global
> Review, Kirk R. SmithISBN: 978-1-4612-8231-0 (Print)
> 978-1-4613-0891-1 (Online) http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4613-0891-1” Kirk R. Smith, MPH, PhD <krksmith at berkeley.edu>Professor of Global
> Environmental HeathChair, Graduate Group in
> Environmental Health SciencesDirector, Global Health and
> Environment ProgramSchool of Public Health747 University HallUniversity of California
> Berkeley, CA
> 94720-7360510-643-0793
> (fax: 642-5810)http://www.kirkrsmith.org/
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160518/498139df/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list