[Stoves] Clean fuel is contextual (Re: Frank, Crispin)

[Traveller]

Frank:

Is WBT - or any such non-representative proxy for cooking and space heating
- the only way to determine if some combination of fuel and device is
"clean"?

You do seem to agree that there is no "clean fuel" on its own, just a
combination of particular type of fuel and combustion device, operated
under some design basis - "biomass uniformly prepared, sized and with
proper combustion characteristics known suitable for a specific stove."

But then you say, "We cannot complain about what other groups are doing
with all the money allocated to them for improving biomass stoves and
cleaner air until we give them a direction to go in."

I am afraid that is naive.

For one, if giving directions for "cleaner air" means not just emission
rate testing for representative combinations of fuels, devices, cuisines in
lab and in field but going through the theology of the "box paradigm" --
what Harold calls the "conflation" of effects, without going into the
diversity of contexts - all you will get is more of the same. ISO TC 285 to
TC 2850.

The other reason is that "cleaner air" is not simply cooked up in boxes by
EPA and BAMG. It is the exposure profile for all air pollutants - not just
"criteria pollutants" in the USEPA lingo - and indeed all health risks that
determine the health consequences.

As Cecil and the ESMAP report I cited three months ago assert, "contextual"
is everything. Until such a time that biomass stoves provide as much
versatility and control, and fit in the ever-changing time demands on poor
women, to speak of "clean air" from domestic stoves is paramount delusion.

If nothing else, you will also have to grant GACC/BAMG demands that any
switchover from "dirty fuel" to "clean fuel" (with stoves) be "permanent,
exclusive, and sustained". That is no stacking. That is the violation of a
cook's privacy and preferences just so GACC and NIH can cook up "evidence
base" of "health effects of clean cooking combinations"??

I suppose many stovers - in universities and outside - did give direction
at the ISO/IWA back a few years ago (my citation in the post in response to
Harold earlier).

Air pollution control in developing countries is not a lab job.

In case of stoves, it has been a hack job.

An inside job.

Time to end the pretense.

Nikhil




On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 7, 2017, at 7:34 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Stovers
>
> What on earth is a “clean fuel”?
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
>
> Its biomass uniformly prepared, sized and with proper combustion
> characteristics known suitable for a specific stove.
>
> We cannot complain about what other groups are doing with all the money
> allocated to them for improving biomass stoves and cleaner air until we
> give them a direction to go in. Not having a direction and complaining just
> goes in circles - as we have been doing for YEARS! The only direction (for
> now) is “What Preparation is Required for a Biomass to work in Paul’s
> Champion TLUD Stove?  And How Best is That Done?”
>
> There is a big pile of biomass from a local community  - what do we need
> to know about it and how best to size it for the Champion?
>
> We need (1) an equipped PRIVATE  lab (no Universities) (2) creative
> personal (3) the stove (4) the biomass (5) money - and funders need to know
> this is research and not all research ends in grand success (as required by
> Universities). Ten steps backwards and one forward. The one’s forward add
> up over time.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170107/94e35d79/attachment.html>