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

Tue Nov 8 02:37:38 CST 2016

Dieter and Stovers,
there is a category of stoves in which outside air is forced into the flame
of burning biomass. These forced draft stoves are pollution free but they
are rather costly because of the forced draft mechanism, but it is our
experience that owners of restaurants do not mind the higher price, because
by substituting LPG by wood, the cost of fuel comes down to just 25% of
that of LPG. However, they still retain the LPG stoves in their kitchens,
because using LPG is more convenient than using wood, especially if you
want to cook something fast. One can start a LPG fire instantaneously,
control the flame intensity by just twisting a knob,  and there is no
hassle of disposing off the ash.
Yours
A.D.Karve

***
Dr. A.D. Karve

Chairman, Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd (www.samuchit.com)

Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 11:48 AM, doseifert <doseifert at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> Datum: 04.11.16 10:53 (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.
>
> ‎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
>
>
> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> Datum: 03.11.16 19:35 (GMT+09:30)
> An: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>
> Betreff: Re: [Stoves] News 31 October 2016: Cleaner, Healthier Cookstoves
> May -- At Long Last -- Be Catching On.
>
> 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/20161108/fdb116bd/attachment.html>