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

Thu Dec 21 21:47:47 CST 2017

Dear Ron:

Holiday and celebratory times  here in Trumpland. Traffic and emissions are
atrocious.

I answered your questions, including about that wildfire windbags from
Colorado and elsewhere. What do you disagree with and on what basis?

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

> 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> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c633b781/attachment.html>