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

Sun Jan 8 09:28:14 CST 2017

Thanks Crispin for the heads up. Your experiences are far more varied than
mine and so I am happy that you corroborated mine.

Warm regards.

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 8:12 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Anil
>
> That is a realistic assessment of field conditions. Another issue, raised
> by the head of projects at the Paraffin Safety Association in South Africa
> (PASASA) is the number of people injured 'per incident'. This means a
> malfunction of equipment to the point someone is injured. LPG 'incidents'
> injured ten times as many people than kerosene incidents.
>
> There is an abiding fear of bottled gas in numerous country populations,
> particularly the poor cohorts. They tell of explosions, mostly caused by
> defective equipment. This was an issue in Indonesia when free stoves given
> out by government started to leak gas after about a year of use.
>
> An awful situation I have heard of is places where electricity and a hot
> plate are provided to poor households. As a back up for unreliable
> electricity, people buy a gas cylinder with a screw on plate (single
> cooker). The power goes off, the space is crowded, the gas bottle, which is
> the body of the stove, is placed on top of the hot plate. Cooking
> continues.
>
> After some time the power comes on again, cooks the bottle and it explodes
> destroying the house and those nearby. It is surprisingly common.
>
> What are the emissions of a burning house‎?
>
> Anil I noted that the PM2.5 numbers used as 'official' in India are higher
> than my own measurements. I assume it has to do with the propane/butane
> mixing ratio and the appliances.
>
> Contextual testing, with all circumstances considered, is needed to assess
> and then predict exposure. To that end ISO TC-285 has created a Working
> Group task specifically to write a contextual testing method. The output
> will be called ISO 19867 Part 2.
>
> Durability testing will expose the shortcomings of stoves and how their
> performance deteriorates over time.
>
> Re‎gards
> Crispin
>
> 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_list
>> s.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/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170108/99fd8ef7/attachment.html>