[Stoves] Clean stoves and LPG planning (India and Haiti)

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Sat Jan 7 18:16:07 CST 2017


Nikhil wrote:
> All I know is Kirk Smith's claim that as of yet, no biomass stove has 
> proved to be "truly health protective". I disagree with that claim 
"truly health protective" is a relative term, and subject to the 
interpretation of the observer.   And a health expert is probably more 
particular than a layperson.

My automobile is not "truly safe", but I use it frequently and for long 
trips.   My driving it could kill me someday, but I am not willing to be 
without it.   Sure glad I am not using a "safe" horse and buggy 
(although with so many FEWER miles travelled each year, I could be more 
safe).   Same can be said for many things.

Meanwhile, 3 billion people cook on solid fuels in the oldest of ways, 
and they could have much better stoves.   I am referring to the GOOD 
stoves, of which the TLUDs (and anything EQUAL) are at the top of the 
list for those stoves using dry biomass (See Figure 1 and discussion in 
ESMAP 2015 tech report 007 co-published with GACC.)

As I have said before, I am not against LPG stoves.  I am against them 
sucking up all the funding to get the good stoves to the poorest people.

Are people in the govenment and agencies in India reading these 
messages?   Or their advisors, including GACC?  The program there is for 
50 million LPG stoves to low-income houses by 2020.   What is the budget 
for that?   Previous messages stated something over US$100 per stove in 
fuel subsidies PER YEAR and onward.       50 million x $100 is $5 
BILLION per year.   Even half of that is outlandish.

We can be sure that the LPG industry is not taking a loss on this 
project.  I am quite sure that there is a major LPG meeting in India 
this month, with stoves being highlighted.   Is anyone representing the 
alternatives to the policy makers and money people?

Alternatives include:   The TLUD stoves as shown in the Deganga study 
(if you have not read about those 12,000 stoves by now, you are 
challenged to do so. http://drtlud.com/deganga-tlud-project-2016     ) 
     Using that methodology and a one-time per stove price of $40, that 
would be 25 million TLUD stoves into Indian households for merely $1 
billion.   And the money spent in Indian factories that make the stoves.

And because each TLUD can earn 4 carbon credits per year of usage, India 
(or the project corporate sponsors) could claim 100 million carbon 
credits per year for the duration of the stove usage, which can be 
sustained with modest support to the communities.  At $10 per carbon 
credit, that would be a "repayment" to India and its people of one 
billion dollars.  EACH YEAR.

Oh  yes, the LPG stoves are headed first and foremost to the poor in the 
urban and peri-urban areas.   Good.   Easiest for delivery of LPG and 
hardest for delivery of dry biomass (until pellet-fuel business gets 
established).   And the TLUD stoves are headed first and foremost to the 
poor (and the real BOP people) in the rural areas.   I call that at 
least as good as what LPG can accomplish, and for a fraction of the cost.

Is it too late for India to change course?   Probably so.   Continue 
with a year of LPG efforts.   See what LPG can accomplish. *_But at 
least let a serious altenative get some good part of the funding. _*  I 
do not know for sure, but I expect that in 2020 or before there will be 
a comparative accounting study of the cost/benefits of the LPG and TLUD 
stove initiatives in India.  Hands down, TLUDs will win.   And win 
BIG.   and the backers of LPG can gather together and count their big 
pile of money, but for impact, they will have lost out.

And what about Haiti???   50 million dollars from Canada are headed that 
way.   And the LPG industry has already shown its intentions. And the 
TLUD efforts are just getting started, but will be there.

For more detail, please come to the ETHOS meeting in the Seattle area, 
Saturday evening session, 28 January 2017, open to the public as well as 
for ETHOS participants.   I will be be going into more depth about the 
India TLUD work, Carbon financing developments, and specifics for a 
proposal regarding Haiti and TLUD stoves (and including other stove 
types that do have roles to play.)

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 1/7/2017 3:38 PM, Traveller wrote:
> Crispin:
>
> After the mirage, desert wanderers can put on blinders.
>
> I am shocked at - "The claim that solid fuels 'cannot be burned 
> cleanly enough to meet WHO indoor air quality standards unless the 
> stove has a fan". Who pray tell has made this claim and how relevant 
> is it? (I can imagine an economist making such a claim. Did I ever say 
> that?)
>
> Besides, how in the world WHO IAQ Guidelines get converted to 
> "standards"?
>
> Is TC 285 in the business of declaring some stoves with some fuels 
> meet WHO IAQ Guidelines? That would be patent fraud. You claim the 
> claim "is patently false, falsified by numerous devices on the market. 
> We can't even say that placing a crib of wood on top of a n existing 
> fire cannot burn cleanly, without the MHA pointing out they are doing 
> exactly that.
>
> Who/what is MHA?
>
> All I know is Kirk Smith's claim that as yet, no biomass stove has 
> proved to be "truly health protective". I disagree with that claim and 
> if that claim is rooted in some TC 285 procedures -- Water Boiling 
> Test, or whatever else it does, with whatever fuel quality and 
> whatever EPA/BAMG "box models" - it is immoral.
>
> To me, there is no basis for IAQ Guidelines. WHO doesn't hare the 
> jurisdiction, nor the competence. If any such jugglery was going on 
> for the US, TC 285 could be drawn to courts.
>
> And if any ISO standards based on TC 285 are applicable - leave alone 
> applied - to the US, that would be grounds enough to draw ISO in a US 
> court. (I assume US is a member of the ISO but it cannot claim 
> immunity because I doubt there is any legislative provision for EPA 
> and private organization such as GACC to pursue such outlandish 
> avenues of pseudo-science.)
>
> ********
>
> Fuel-fetishists' fancy about clean fuel - "One is that it will 
> automatically burn 'cleanly' regardless of the device it is in." - 
> will never be satisfied.
>
> It is not that LPG combustion can have high emission rates. Rather, 
> the fact remains that examples of automatic and continuous combustion 
> over long periods of LPG burning in "unclean" manner are probably 
> confined to industrial fires.
>
> For all practical purposes, LPG is a "clean fuel". So is methane. (I 
> am sure biomass can be converted to propane or butane.)
>
> It is when general biomasses are concerned - tree products of 
> different variety, shrubbery, grasses, dung, roots, paper, leaves, 
> crop wastes - that examples of "unclean combustion" abound, sometimes 
> automatic and continuous.
>
> For all practical purposes, solid fuel uses (biomasses mentioned plus 
> coals) in cooking and heating stoves in most developing country 
> situations I have observed is "unclean".
>
> So, in terms of current actual usage, liquids are "clean fuels" 
> because their burners are designed to deliver relatively far cleaner 
> combustion over long periods, and solid fuels are "unclean" EXCEPT 
> when used with BETTER BURNERS.
>
> It is only in the totality of use -- not just emission loads per meal 
> cooked, as tested in labs -- that a fuel is "clean" or "unclean".
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170107/30fcb283/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list