[Stoves] LPG versus gasifiers with dry biomass .... was Re: NIH and Gates Foundation-Funded Research to Measure Health Benefits of Clean Cookstoves

[Paul Anderson]

Stovers,    (sorry this is a long message, but I think you will find it 
lively.  At least read what is at the bottom.)

On 11/6/2016 2:18 PM, Traveller wrote:
>
> Maybe someone wants to prove Kirk Smith wrong - for him saying LPG is 
> "the fuel that could save millions of lives every year. • By definition!"
>
> That comment has great depth to it -- the way "Burden of Disease" has 
> been computed is by treating "Solid Fuel Use" as the sole source of 
> Household Air Pollution (with quantities and emission factors cooked 
> up in collective fantasies). Therefore, LPG is the savior fuel BY 
> DEFINITION.
>
> I have no problem with that, 
I can agree with Nikhil on that.  LPG is good.  Can save lives. Fine.

But let's separate the gasifier stoves from the 3-stone fires and simple 
improved cookstoves.  ESMAP (World Bank) did that in the major 2015 
document:
> THE STATE OF THE GLOBAL CLEAN
> AND IMPROVED COOKING SECTOR
available at:
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf?sequence=1

And the GACC certainly knows about it, because the GACC is the 
co-publisher.  And Kirk Smith knows about it.

If you have not seen it, please take a look.   Summary is on page 13, 
and a copy of that page is attached to this message (with yellow 
highlights added by Anderson)

The ESMAP and GACC publication CLEARLY classifies the gasifier 
technology of solid biomass fuels as "Advanced ICS" (separate from the 
Legacy, Basic, and Intermediate ICS stove technologies).    The Advanced 
ICS (gasifiers) is one of three of the major headings of "Clean Cooking 
Solutions" along with the "Modern Fuel Stoves" (fossil fuels LPG, 
Natural Gas, and Kerosene-with-footnote), and with "Renewable Fuel 
Stoves" (Biogas, alcohols, solar).

As Nikhil says, and I have agreed, Kirk Smith's comment about saving 
lives "by definition" has some validity (if it was properly qualitied 
about other "fuels" like alcohol as also saving lives BY 
DEFINITION.).    But he is not acknowledging or advocating alcohol 
stoves, or natural gas stoves.   LPG is clearly the glory child in this 
case.  (and dry biomass is the whipping boy).

Using similar wording, I would like to say that the following is also true:

Gasifier stoves are "the [stove technology] that could save millions of 
lives every year. • By definition!"

        AND

WHEN USED WITH MODERN, PROVEN, AVAILABLE GASIFIER STOVES, then wood 
(chips, segments, pellets, etc) AND even agricultural refuse (maize 
cobs, briquettes of stems,) and even appropriate dung cubes are "the 
fuels that could save millions of lives every year. • By definition!"

  I have written my agreement with what Kirk Smith has written, I hope 
he will write his agreement with what I have written.

I also add:  Perhaps the medical / health evidence is strong for 
gasifers, but not as strong as for LPG.  I can accept that.   BUT, for 
every household that can be supplied with LPG SUSTAINABLY, there are 
thousands (or tens of thousands?) of households that can be SUSTAINABLY  
fueled with dry biomass fuel and gasifier stoves.

Therefore, for actual "body counts" of how many millions of lives will 
be saved, my bet is that gasifiers (when adequately supported for use in 
impoverished homes) will out-perform the LPG / fossil fuel by 100 to 1.

Nikhil wrote (and I agree) that Nikhil has a problem
> just with the assumption that solid fuel use is by definition "dirty". 
> Fuels don't have "dirtiness" embedded in them; processed solid fuels 
> can achieve better combustion and of course highly controlled 
> combustion and proper ash management can also achieve far cleaner 
> combustion that what is assumed to be the case.

Summary:  Except that LPG is a carbon positive fossil fuel, I have no 
complaints about the promotion of LPG cookstoves.

Well, there is actually one additional issue.  The amounts of financial 
and in-kind assistance that are given to LPG should ALSO be given to the 
gasifier stoves.  How much?   Equal amount in total?   Or equal amount 
per household served?   Or maybe one-quarter of the amount of each 
household served by LPG?   On a dollar for dollar basis (or even 1 :4 
ratio), gasifier stoves can easily reach and benefit more poor people in 
developing societies than can LPG.

Let me repeat that, this time as a challenge:
On a dollar for dollar basis (or even 1 :4 ratio), gasifier stoves can 
easily reach and benefit more poor people in developing societies than 
can LPG.

Such a research question would bring more funding for gasifier stoves 
that has ever been available!!   But that is not my purpose. I am not 
against LPG.

My purpose is to simply say that it is about time for some serious 
funding for gasifier stoves into the households that can utilize them.   
A great example is the Case Study of TLUD stoves in Deganga, India (on 
the Internet since 30 September this year, and featured at my website    
www.drtlud.com   ).

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161106/f72be33c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ESMAP fig 1 2015 classification of stoves.png
Type: image/png
Size: 275564 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161106/f72be33c/attachment.png>