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

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 20 09:57:16 CST 2017


> Dear Ron:
>
> Lab WBT is not worth arguing about. I don't know what good it does.
>
> This paper in question does look at real stoves and fuels, but what shall
> I compare  its results with - lab readings with WBT with some fictional
> three-stone stove and a fuel type that is not obtained locally in the areas
> in question? That's what I meant by "cooked up evidence". They compare
> their findings to the lab results with WBT; I say the comparison is
> meaningless, since WBT itself is meaningless to begin with.
>
> There is no established relationship between real emission factors and
> emission rates and the type of disease incidence that may have any meaning
> for intervention. All we have is GoBbleDygook of DALYs computed from
> emission rates, with no theory, no data.
>
> There is no question that smoke may lead to some illness depending on the
> person in question, level of exposure, and other individual and
> environmental factors. All I am saying is that no quantification can yet be
> made.
>
> I thought you tracked GACC's work.
>
> Nikhil
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Ronal W. Larson <
> rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Nikhil  Few notes below.
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> *[RWL:  Maybe I’m wrong,  but I believe you can’t do anything related to
>> health without knowing emission factors.   *
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> *[RWL:   The cite for which is?*
>>
>> 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.”
>>
>> *[RWL:  You are “astounded” because lab staff can produce lower emission
>> results than in the field?  Your preference would be for them to
>> artificially get big emission numbers?  I think there is general agreement
>> that test lab staff try very hard to not let a fire go out - and real cooks
>> have other, conflicting responsibilities.*
>>
>> * So you doubt my doubt -  please show a clear line between this paper’ s
>> (non-WBT) numbers and what might result in a lab WBT test of a chula?   *
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> *[RWL:  You believe this paper is not looking at “real stoves and fuels”?
>>   Their study looked to me pretty real.  How would you have improved it?*
>>
>> *Ron *
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.n
>>> et/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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171220/bd0b403f/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list