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

Sun Jan 8 07:45:52 CST 2017

Hi all, just wading in... 

My parents used coal and firewood for cooking when they were growing up, whereas LPG and electricity were used for cooking when I was growing up. LPG is both a boon and a bane - it's a very convenient fuel to use, there's lots of it around but extracting and burning it causes huge environmental impacts. With clean burners, it's a clean burning fuel, compared to a lot of biomass stoves that need the right fuel and stove mix. It's a hard fuel to wean ourselves away from. 

For biomass stoves and TLUDs to compete against LPG, they have to be more convenient and cheaper to run. I'm not sure that's the case in most parts of Southeast and South Asia. Gas cylinders are heavily subsidized in most developing countries. Gas stoves are also terribly convenient for busy cooks, no issues with turn-down or a short burn cycle like with TLUDs. 

I feel it's in areas with lots of renewable biomass and underdeveloped gas distribution networks (either pipelines or cylinders) that biomass stoves stand a chance. Maybe if pelletized biomass fuels made for more convenient light-off and longer burn times, biomass stoves could compete against LPG.

On January 8, 2017 8:10:27 PM GMT+08:00, nari phaltan <nariphaltan at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>As I have said before all fuels are dirty - only excellent combustion
>makes
>them clean. <http://nariphaltan.org/diesel.pdf> Hence making a general
>statement that LPG is clean is not correct.
>
>Too often I have seen LPG stoves used in rural Maharashtra producing
>yellow/red flame which blackens the utensil. Either the burner or the
>jet
>is partially blocked and so not enough air is mixed with the fuel. It
>is
>very difficult to get any technician to clean these burners so people
>continue with this yellow flame.
>
>I guess since the LPG is very convenient (with a flip of valve you get
>a
>flame) hence people do not mind using it despite problems with the
>burner.
>
>Somebody ought to do emission tests from such burners in closed
>environment
>of huts.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Anil
>
>Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
>Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road
>P.O.Box 44
>Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India
>Ph:91-2166-220945/222842
>e-mail:nariphaltan at gmail.com
>           nariphaltan at nariphaltan.org
>
>http://www.nariphaltan.org
>
>On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul:
>>
>> Same here - "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."
>>
>> ***********
>>
>> Kirk Smith goes by stove testing to determine what is "health
>protective".
>>
>> I am against the cockamamie theory "solid fuels 'cannot be burned
>cleanly
>> enough to meet WHO indoor air quality standards unless the stove has
>a fan."
>>
>> In fact, all this water boiling is water under the bridge. None of it
>has
>> anything to do with real cooking by real people using real fuels to
>cook
>> real meals round the year -- there is such a diversity of them, it is
>> nonsensical to go by water boiling. As far as I am concerned, all WBT
>> results to date could be evaporated; no real cook will mind. New
>tests can
>> begin.
>>
>> I stand by my claim - "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"."
>>
>> But that is neither here nor there. As Kirk Smith recognizes, "Making
>the
>> Available Clean" is still a challenge. (LPG is "Making the Clean
>> Available.")
>>
>> Clean is not the only criterion. And is perceptual, contextual.
>>
>>
>> Nikhil
>>
>>
>> ---------
>> (US +1) 202-568-5831 <(202)%20568-5831>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
>wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <(309)%20452-7072>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/