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

[Ronal W. Larson]

List:  cc Nikhil

	Note that Nikhil is slipping - a 3 day delay in response.  No answers to any of my questions and only a repeat of his standard talking points.

	One more insert below.


> On Dec 20, 2017, at 8:57 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Ron: 
> 
> Lab WBT is not worth arguing about. I don’t know what good it does. 
	[RWL:  You’ve hit the nail on the head here.

Ron
	
> 
> 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 <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
> Nikhil  Few notes below.
> 
>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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
>> 
>>>  
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171221/1b3c50da/attachment.html>