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

Sun Jan 8 12:40:12 CST 2017

Anil says, "all fuels are dirty - only excellent combustion makes them
clean. <http://nariphaltan.org/diesel.pdf> "

Depends on what the meaning of clean is. In my view, the meaning is
contextual, not just at the micro level but nationally.

Beginning with UNDP (as I recall it) and most recently coming to Obama's
"Clean Power Plan", the term has been corrupted to no end. "Clean" is
supposed to be "no fossil fuel", which is plainly stupid; the efficiency of
fossil fuel use has improved dramatically in various steady applications,
at least in the industrialized and industrializing countries, with the
result that "more complete combustion" emits much less non-CO2 pollutants
(with the result that CO2 per unit kg input goes up, which is good from
both health and climate points of view).

And then "clean" is supposed to be "renewable", which raises another raft
of questions. Many renewables require land and capital, which are not
"renewable" and some like biomass require much more water and labor, which
are not entirely "renewable".

Then consider the evidence I cited in my response to Ron last night -- from
the Nature article he sent and the black carbon link I added -- that
traditional biomass combustion emits far more climate and health pollutants
 in India than coal.

Definitions matter. Measurements matter. Relative magnitudes matter.

Emission inventories are manufactured, but my rough sense from the rather
delightful "640 districts" study is that meteorogical data can provide a
check on how emissions translate into contribution to concentrations.
(There is far more to PM2.5 or to even small-scale biomass and coal
combustion than household cooking, which is why I find this "household
energy consumption" mania rather meaningless. Besides, the underlying data
are poor, poor, poor. Everybody in the modeling world knows that.)

Of course, coal and solid biomass can be combusted "cleanly" - in popular
understanding - not just in power plants but also in direct thermal
applications by small users. We know that from fuel chemistry, combustion
chemistry, and air chemistry.

US consumption of biomass energy in 2016 <http://www.eia.gov/renewable/> is
estimated to be 4 quads (quadrillion Btus), which is about 100 mtoe
(million tons of oil equivalent). Not sure if it includes charcoal and
campfires. It is more than all other "new renewables" (excluding large
hydros) combined in the US.

And I am guessing that is about the same as all small-scale (non-power)
biomass energy consumption in India - 62.5 m in households (0.5 ton biomass
per household per year x 0.5 mtoe per mt biomass x 250 m households), rest
outside homes.

Plus non-energy small-scale anthropogenic combustion -- burning crop
wastes, leaves, urban solid biomass.

The deceit of ISO IWA is that the chemistries in actual cooking conditions
do not matter, that "stove testing" with WBTs under tightly controlled fuel
chemistry and fictional "box models" have *predictive values* for air
pollution exposure and incremental "health benefits".

Ignoring all non-household solid fuel use use, combustion of other fuels
(industrial, transport, commercial, even households) that emit pollutants,
and natural sources of PM2.5.

That is insane. (Cecil and Crispin might have milder words.)

There must be NO assertion of "clean" based on stove testing. I know that
is a radical statement, but the time has come to sit back and take stock of
this farce going on for some five years now. It has nothing to do with air
pollution, nothing to do with exposures and dose-response ratio in any
cohort-specific manner, just about nothing to do with anything other than
cooking up some alternative GBD numbers. (Which is not a bad idea in
itself. Stay tuned.)

Nikhil

---------
(US +1) 202-568-5831 <(202)%20568-5831>

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, 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_list
>> s.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/20170108/56e63dc5/attachment.html>