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

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott crispinpigott at outlook.com
Sun Jan 8 10:14:05 CST 2017


Dear Anil

Just for completeness:

James Robinson and I tested some LPG stoves and in order to do that properly we had to find the mix of propane and butane in three countries, Nigeria, India and South Africa where it is called 'Handigas'.

The mix ranges from 80:20 to 20:80. The ix depends on a number of things like availability, temperature, cost and habit.

As you probably know, gas burners are very sensitive to gas composition and altitude. Thus the natural gas burners in North America are marked with the altitude range for which they are certified.

The South African kerosene stove test requires at least one test for emissions at both sea level and Johannesburg elevations (about the same as Denver).

A fixed dimension gas burner optimised for kerosene, LPG 20:80 or natural gas will definitely not perform as well ‎on the other fuels/mixes nor at a substantially different altitude.

In a corroded or worn condition it is obvious a gas burner, sensitive as ‎it is to the air-fuel ratio, will not perform as well or 'cleanly' as it will when adjusted and new.

I should point out, as Alex E often does, that if the flame is making the pot sooty, it doesn't mean the CO is high and vise versa. To find out what is happening you have to measure.

Regards
Crispin




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<mailto:e-mail%3Anariphaltan at gmail.com>
           nariphaltan at nariphaltan.org<mailto:nariphaltan at nariphaltan.org>

http://www.nariphaltan.org

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com<mailto: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<mailto:e-mail%3Anariphaltan at gmail.com>
           nariphaltan at nariphaltan.org<mailto:nariphaltan at nariphaltan.org>

http://www.nariphaltan.org

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com<mailto: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<tel:(202)%20568-5831>


On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto: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<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072<tel:(309)%20452-7072>
Website:  www.drtlud.com<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20170108/91a0caf5/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list