[Stoves] Chinese testing and Chinese stoves (was Re: "Those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement")

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 20 11:09:57 CST 2017


Crispin:

You probably have no data on "chronic under-heating", but that's ok. We
know how poor people cope with winters. (Here in Washington, they sleep on
the grates of the Capital heat network, a few blocks away from the White
House, for example).

PEMS measure emissions, not concentrations and certainly not exposures.
Personal monitors record concentrations, a proxy for ingestion.

If you are able to - or unable to - model emission rates into
concentrations, tell that please to WHO and TC-285. They should immediately
back off from their emission-air circulation rigmarole.

Which means, in turn, find a more suitable metric for air pollution than
PM2.5 per minute and per MJ. That is what EPA did with residential wood
heaters in the US, with a different protocol and certification criteria,
and the story is not one of glorious success.

Good luck! Keep innovating, adjusting, and make a case for applied R&D
including market data and customer data collected in a sensible way, not
the average "household energy surveys" or "rural energy surveys". (My
friends did some, and I was always dismissive of those findings.)

Nikhil


On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Nikhil
>
> I was typing 'chronic under-heating' and swiped the touch keyboard left
> which erases the ‎last word. I am using a Passport. Worse than auto-correct
> I suppose.
>
> The measurements were made with a Micro-PEMS from the only source of them.
> Measurements made by Fresh Air, analysis by the equipment providers. I have
> raw data. It is hard to extract.
>
> The personal monitors were worn so it is a measure of what they
> experience, though CO was ambient in the home. There was a huge difference
> with the improved stoves. More than 100 ppm was common in the control homes
> and the 'before' measurements. The 'after' showed a consistent 1 ppm in
> nearly all cases all the time. One 'before' day a home was above 100 for 24
> hrs.
>
> Temperatures were measured about every two hours all winter, except at
> night, and all fuel was weighed. Forty % more heat from 40% less fuel, for
> the coal stoves. Climate freaks should be buying these things and handing
> them out like popcorn. 40% reduction!
>
> I heard today of a few private sales of the model KG4.3 being ordered,
> sales that are taking place ‎outside the project. Reports are very
> positive. Today we took delivery of the wooden pattern for the top deck.
>
> We are preparing for a major expansion for three models. First, 1000 then
> another 13,000. It is about $300k. Must check the pattern carefully.
> Measure three times, cast once.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
> Crispin:
>
> Something got frozen in Almaty winter: a word is missing here -
>
> "The health impact of chronic seems to far outweigh the negative health
> effects of PM2.5, though that impact was pretty obvious as well."
>
> Folklore has it that men and boys handle heating stoves and fireplaces,
> chimneys much more than do women and girls.
>
> How were  you able to separate exposures from so-called HAP from exposures
> to other sources of pollutants in and outside homes? Or are you comparing
> the change - showing that the reduction in exposures was greater for men
> and boys so t hat, all else being equal, they must have had a higher
> exposure to begin with?
>
> Also, remind me - what was the measure of exposures? Dosimetry?
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear N and P
>>
>> One of the most interesting things to come out of the winter-long
>> monitoring of IAQ, personal exposure, temperature and health in the
>> Kyrgyzstan Pilot was the big difference (service factor) provided by a
>> stove that used less fuel and kept the room 5 degrees C warmer.
>>
>> The health impact of chronic seems to far outweigh the negative health
>> effects of PM2.5, though that impact was pretty obvious as well.
>>
>> I was in a meeting today and when it came to the negative health impacts
>> of stoves someone chimed in with the obligatory 'especially it's affects on
>> women and children. So it is worth noting that in rural poor families in
>> Kyrgyzstan the men turned out to have higher smoke exposure than women or
>> children.
>>
>> My first maxim, as my students know, is "Never assume anything'.
>>
>> Don't claim what was not measured. I wonder how fast we can hold to that
>> standard.
>>
>> Regards
>> Crispin in solitude in Almaty
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171220/2de0be64/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list