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

Sun Jan 8 10:36:07 CST 2017

Lets face if we have people who die of explosions from gaseous household explosions in Canada and other developed nations, there must be horrific accidents with gaseous fuels with give away stoves in developing countries. 

What it comes down to is that some agencies embrace shallow sustainability in the DOLE OUT of EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY STOVES as long as it works for their reporting needs to their donors and keeps the Lords of Poverty paychecks flowing who cares about the concept of sustainable development. 

Now some of us are more concerned with deep sustainability in the design and delivery of sustainable household cooking system programs. I don't think there is a gold standard in biomass stove safety but check out our REAP-clay brick stove which has an outer wall cool to the touch (It draws air for combustion around the outer wall). In one village where we did a village wide campaign one of the comments we had was "there wasn't a child burned in the community this year". 
https://www.reap-canada.com/online_library/IntDev/Brochure%20-%20REAP%20Noflay%20Clay%20Brick%20Stove.pdf

In my opinion these double walled clay brick stoves are as safe as you can get regarding accidents with children and a combustion device.  As well the ambers do not blow around to cause house fires as the ashes are contained in the inner combustion chamber.  I can't say the same with portable biomass stoves which have exposed ashes they are considerably more of a risk to children and to household fires. 
best regards

Roger Samson
www.reap-canada.com
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roger_Samson2

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 1/8/17, nari phaltan <nariphaltan at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Stoves] Clean stoves and LPG planning (India and Haiti)
 To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
 Received: Sunday, January 8, 2017, 10:28 AM

 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. 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

 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
 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.or
 g

 to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web
 page

 http://lists.bioenergylists.or
 g/mailman/listinfo/stoves_list s.bioenergylists.org

 for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see
 our web site:

 http://stoves.bioenergylists.o
 rg/

 ______________________________
 _________________

 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/

 -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

 _______________________________________________
 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/