[Stoves] News 31 October 2016: Cleaner, Healthier Cookstoves May -- At Long Last -- Be Catching On.p

alex english aenglish444 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 6 09:28:19 CST 2016


Crispin,
"a short burn time and quick extinction. So far, neither has been addressed
well.

Perhaps a quick cooker should be using charcoal pellets or powder. "

A drop or two of liquid oxygen is all that's needed:) What is the cheapest
most widely available accelerant that won't detonate?

Alex

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Dieter
>
> This optimisation can be seen in the study of cooking habits in Central
> Java done by Cecil Cook. ‎The initial assumption that there were 'LPG using
> cooks' and 'wood burning cooks' turned out to be incorrect.
>
> Seventy per cent of LPG users use wood to heat water. Another 70% of wood
> users use LPG to cook. Cecil identified two particular tasks well suited to
> gas cookers: reheating food and making a quick cup of tea in the same room
> as guests. And that is exactly what even 'really poor' people do with LPG,
> if they can get it.
>
> So, those not using any LPG at all, which is 30% of the lower income 40%
> of the general population, either cannot afford any or cannot access it.
>
> There are two opportunities in that market which are not being addressed:
> dedicated, clean burning and efficient water heaters, then a biomass-fueled
> stove with very fast ignition, a short burn time and quick extinction. So
> far, neither has been addressed well.
>
> Perhaps a quick cooker should be using charcoal pellets or powder.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
>
> Dear Crispin and All,
> I believe that we all accept that there are optimal combinations of
> cooking technologies. LPG-stoves may be appropriate for tasks with short
> processes and low heat consumption. In community kitchens e.g school
> kitchens, social restaurants as proposed by Anil, the combination with
> several options (integrated cooking) is easy.
> Best wishes. Dieter
>
>
>
> ‎Dear Dieter
>
> Exactly. That is an example of making a 'contextual' calculation. Actual
> exposure is dependent upon the context of use.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
> Dear Crispin,
> The exposure time you mention can be effectively shortened  (e.g. from
> 3...4 hours to half an hour when cooking beans) trough cooking  with
> retained heat. An average cook should not waste health, time, and money by
> simmering.
> Kind regards, Dieter
>
>
>
> Dear Nikhil
>
> The WHO has 'emission rates' which they model into exposures. As was
> pointed out on this list already, the exposure, modeled or measured, has to
> consider the duration of the exposure, not just the concentration.
>
> The metrics of the IWA, for example, which are claimed to have been
> created using the same or a similar dispersion model, do not account for
> the amount of time the exposure is endured. There is no context.
>
> There is no meaningful way to rate a stove 'according to the WHO' that
> protects human health without stating a context.
>
> An average emissions rate in an average kitchen with average ventilation
> must also consider the average time the average cook of average health with
> an average diet living in an average city/village/community is exposed to
> that PM averaged over a single (or triple) box of average air.
>
> If someone in that average house smokes‎ an average number of average
> cigarettes the average exposure number goes out the average window.
>
> Regards
> Crispin toking above average Turkish coffee
>
>
>
> News 31 October 2016: Cleaner, Healthier Cookstoves May -- At Long Last
> -- Be Catching On. <http://ensia.com/features/cleaner-cookstoves/>
>
> He wrote another opinion piece These cheap, clean stoves were supposed to
> save millions of lives. What happened?
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-cheap-clean-stoves-were-supposed-to-save-millions-of-lives-what-happened/2015/10/29/c0b98f38-77fa-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html> a
> year ago (Washington Post, 29 Oct 2015).
>
> Good to see someone keeping tabs on charities and their promises, if not
> premises.
>
> I will write on last year's piece later. Like that one, this piece is good
> but employs a lot of old men's and infantile fancies.
>
> "Household air pollution from cooking fires is thought to be the world’s
> leading environmental cause
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672215/> of death and
> disability."
>
> ** An unverifiable allegation. Not a CAUSE, simply an attribution to a
> risk factor, based on fictional data, and dubious methods. **
>
> "The problems with cookstoves are legion. The vast majority of stoves
> fail to meet strict World Health Organization standards that are set to
> protect human health. (Designing a stove that works effectively for fuels
> that vary in their moisture content or chemical composition is difficult.)"
>
> **Who gave WHO jurisdiction to put "standards"? (They are only guidelines,
> and their provenance is so far a mystery to me. If the IAQ guidelines are
> based on GBD gobbledy-gook, I suspect there is a fundamental failure.) What
> does WHO know about combustion or cooking? Did it set IAQ Guidelines
> decidedly so low as to drive most of stove-makers or solid fuels out of
> business? **
>
> "With the exception of a massive government-financed program in China in
> the 1990s, no government, philanthropic or commercial cookstove program has
> been shown to deliver large-scale, measurable health or environmental
> benefits. Up in Smoke <http://www.nber.org/papers/w18033>, a 2012 field
> study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers, found no
> long-term health or environmental benefits in households in India that had
> been given a clean stove, mostly because the stoves weren’t properly
> maintained or were discarded."
>
> ** This is repetition of lies by citation. The MIT cons did no "long-term"
> study and used a stove design that had long been abandoned by its original
> creators. These e-cons know nothing about cooking, or health, and would be
> dismissed anywhere if they weren't ensconced in Cambridge, MA. It was a
> poorly designed research project with a ridiculous mania; what is worse, in
> the Working Paper draft I reviewed, their conclusions were contrary to
> their findings detailed at the back. What a fraud. **
>
> "Whatever one thinks about carbon credits for cookstoves — and they are
> controversial — they distort the market by providing subsidies and cannot
> be relied upon as a long-term revenue source."
>
> ** Subsidies to the poor or to new technologies have been accepted as a
> legitimate purpose of public expenditure for decades. This nonsense of
> "distort the market" only means subsidies are for the rich, punitive and
> failed markets for the poor. **
>
> "What’s more, most experts think that local manufacturers, who sell
> lower-quality stoves at lower prices, outsell the U.S.-based companies. “I
> can name 20 different entrepreneurs across Africa who sells 350 to 500
> stoves a month, or more, and the numbers add up,” says Elisha Moore Delate,
> an independent consultant and cookstove expert based in Nairobi. These
> cheaper stoves may not deliver the health or environmental benefits of
> higher quality ones, but they do save poor people money, which is no small
> thing."
>
> ** Another set of unverifiable allegations. The cheaper stoves may well be
> more usable. Obviously they are used more. **
>
> "More importantly, will cleaner efficient cookstoves improve the health
> of customers and state of the global environment? That’s also hard to know
> because reliable data on their real-life performance is scarce
> <http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/defining-clean-and-efficient.html>
> ."
>
> ** Oh, data is not a problem. GBD has cooked up the health impacts with
> pitiful "data", mostly assumptions and computed estimates.
>
> Make merry in the South Lawn and the Imperial Hotel. With Leonardo
> DeCaprio. And excuse GACC's premises and promises. **
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161106/1e4db212/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list