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

Sun Nov 6 20:19:12 CST 2016

Dear Crispin,We used the very stable SK parabolic cooker I have designed in the 1980s as open source for manufacturing in workshops worldwide with the help of EG-Solar and others. These cookers have many further applications, also for income generation.Till now I did not succeed with my proposal for a one million solar cooker project in Spain to reduce unemploymemt of young people. I cannot accept missing of perspectives in a world in urgent need of global transition to sustainability.Best wishes. Dieter 
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> Datum: 07.11.16  10:56  (GMT+09:30) An: Stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> Betreff: Re: [Stoves] News 31 October 2016: Cleaner, Healthier Cookstoves May -- At Long Last -- Be Catching On.p 

Dear Dieter

Spain is a good place to use an SK14. From Christian Kock, right? (Another example of nominative determinism.)

‎They have enough money to buy one, it is really sunny and not too far north, it is unlikely someone will steal the food sitting on the hot spot, and just as unlikely the cooker will be stolen to be sold for aluminum scrap.  

In other locales all those problems are ever-present. Making hot water is a great idea. Perhaps solar power would be more accepted if there was no emphasis on cooking, just water heating. 

Regards 

Crispin 

Dear Crispin,
Yes, these combinations are convincing. Let me add a personal experience: When I was in Spain with my family we used a 1.4m and a 1.0m SK solar cooker and redused LPG-consumption to approx. zero, and we had always a lot of hot, boiled water. 
Best wishes. Dieter

Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> 
Datum: 07.11.16 01:22 (GMT+09:30) 
An: Stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> 
Betreff: Re: [Stoves] News 31 October 2016: Cleaner, Healthier Cookstoves May -- At Long Last -- Be Catching On.p

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.

He wrote another opinion piece These cheap, clean
 stoves were supposed to save millions of lives. What happened? 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 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,
 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."

** 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161107/ac37f3ce/attachment.html>