[Stoves] News: On-the-ground research reveals true impact of cook-stove emissions in India

[Nikhil Desai]

Ron:

I have now read the paper and I am baffled at your claim that "it is full
of health rationales (for India)."

It makes no findings about health, just about emission factors in a small
part of India.

To the authors' credit, they specify what fuels they have evaluated,
provide their chemical analysis. And they have looked at actual cooking,
not water boiling.

I wonder if they had looked at GACC-commissioned study in India of
district-level emissions.

I am astounded at  your claim "I doubt one can use this paper to downgrade
the WBT." when the authors clearly conclude that  " standardized burn
protocols (typically a water boiling test) may not replicate cookstove
performance in the field."

Only says "may". Because we really don't know much about emission rates
across real stoves and fuels. It's mostly a cooked up evidence.


Nikhil

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

> Nikhil and list:
>
> The (non-fee) paper is at https://www.atmos-chem-
> phys.net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-13721-2017.pdf
> The supplement at  https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-
> 13721-2017-supplement.pdf
>
> Looks like a credible paper - but not one I am going to read carefully as
> it is only related to traditional chulas.  Seems to have a somewhat
> different means of monitoring the pollutants - in the field.  I doubt one
> can use this paper to downgrade the WBT.
>
> I am going to guess you won’t like the paper as it is full of health
> rationales (for India).
> Re repeatability, I am working up more on fuel shape, which is a main
> feature of the L’Orange et al paper.  Fuel shape also not covered in the
> TLUD paper I noted with the 10% efficiency that Crispin has since commented
> on.
>
> Twenty years ago we had some fine comments from a Professor at Washington
> University - who (I vaguely recall) was interested in some seeds that
> performed well for cooking because of their high oil content - that had no
> other use, because they were poisonous.
>
> Ron
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 9:01 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On-the-ground research reveals true impact of *cook-stove* emissions in
> India
> <http://indiacsr.in/on-the-ground-research-reveals-true-impact-of-cook-stove-emissions-in-india/>.
> India CSR Network blog, 15 December 2017
>
>   "We conducted real-life cookstove tests and burned a wide variety of
> biofuels, cooked different meals in a number of varying ventilation
> situations, then *recorded the resulting emission levels* using high-tech
> particle measurement devices.
>
> Once the data was crunched back in St. Louis, the results were startling:
>  In some cases, *more than twice the emission levels were detected when
> compared to the previous lab findings*, revising what people thought they
> knew for decades about this pervasive and dangerous problem."
>
>
> I wonder what protocols and fuels were used, and also whether they only
> measured emissions but also concentrations and tried to model the two.
>
> Or whether the alleged "previous lab findings" are comparable or this
> research team is just boasting.
>
> I hope the revisions are not as shoddy as the history. What people thought
> they knew was what they chose to or were instructed to believe.
>
> Related press release at Engineers work to fight pollution at home,
> globally
> <https://source.wustl.edu/2017/08/engineers-work-fight-pollution-home-globally/>, Erika
> Ebsworth-Goold  August 11, 2017. Haven't yet located the full paper.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171218/24e498cb/attachment.html>