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

Frank Shields franke at cruzio.com
Sat Jan 7 23:08:07 CST 2017


Hi Nikhil,



> On Jan 7, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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"? 

FRANK: To determine if a stove does its job ‘clean’ must be determined at the end when the meal is served. We are going through the 6 Box system and starting with the fuel. We can determine if process is going as it should by testing downstream without going all the way to the end - eliminating many variables found along the way. 
Box 1) Fuel
Box 2 Fuel introduction
Box 3 Combustion chamber
Box 4 Cooking utensils
Box 5 Cooking procedure 
Box 6 Task completion


> 
> You do seem to agree that there is no [FRANK(rarely)] ”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.” 
> FRANK Correct

> 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."
> FRANK Correct

> I am afraid that is naive. 
> FRANK Wrong

> 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. 

FRANK: Nikhil - I don’t care about clean air. We have a situation where the 1) Combustion Chamber is fixed and 2) the available wild biomass to be used is fixed. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN with what we have. If five combustion chambers are tested (stoves) we optimize them for the best using available wild biomass that we prepare from the pile of using the equipment they have. They are now ‘clean’ as they can be. If one is cleaner than the others they get the bid for sale. (and fuel availability and quantity is considered). Passes some EPA, BANG, ISO, GACC, NIH, IWA or whatever  - WHO CARES when the choice is between Best we can do OR Dirty.  

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

They need competition. We researchers and scientist give them NONE. We need some creative ideas and risk takers at the University level. No guts: no glory. 

Heres an idea:
Helium Surrogate:
Get the equipment and see if it can be made to work for what we want. Bleed out gases just before the secondary and determine the distribution and mass balance from the biomass being burned. Determine the best composition for gases to burn the hottest and cleanest. Could end up being a complete waste of a few 100K USD if it doesn’t. 

Heres an idea:
Make pellets starting at high quality in a stove proved to burn them cleanly and hot. Make a series of pellets with: a) increasing ash, b) increasing lipids (pine pitch), c) decreasing carbon density d) increasing moisture e) increasing size f) decreasing size g) increasing lignin etc. etc. 
Determine the concentration where they start to fail air quality and/or heat. Measure using Helium Surrogate (if it works) the change in gas composition going into the secondary. 

Perhaps we can optimize the wild biomass used by measure of the composition going into the secondary once we know what to look for - or used to problem solve a poor running combustion chamber. 

If lipids are found to be a problem develop a test procedure that works in the range we need to look at. We need test procedures for the components found to be important. 

Then when this is finalized we work on Box 2 :)  Fuel Introduction into the combustion chamber. Pellets can be feed in many different ways. Sticks introduced at a rate determine (from the above) to be optimum. 

Quit complaining and get thinking of alternative uses for all the money. 

Its stupid to require the air be below a specified particle concentration when we are not willing to wire in electricity and handout microwave ovens. 

Regards 

Frank
 

> An inside job. 
> 
> Time to end the pretense.



> Nikhil
> 
>  
>  
> 
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 7, 2017, at 7:34 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto: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/20170107/2df34490/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list