[Stoves] Clean fuel is contextual (Re: Frank, Crispin)
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Sun Jan 8 22:43:27 CST 2017
Frank and all,
Group A is the main group, and has sub-groups, some (many) with good
supply of biomass (not pellets). The Deganga study discusses this
group. Our Champion TLUD stove there (West Bengal, India) has over 50%
subsidy (that is paid back easily via the functional carbon credits), so
the stoves are eventually profitable for the people, but there is a
shortage of up-front capital to get the stoves out of the factories.
Note: The projects and the factories are separate entities. Do not
expect a metal working factory to finance a stove project that needs 2
to 3 years to break even and then have surplus for many years.
And even with the low price of US$15 per stove, there are also payment
plans for less than $10 with monthy payments that are earned from the
sale of the charcoal produced as a "byproduct" of the wood fuel that is
only have the quantity of the fuels with the mud and 3-stone stoves.
Sort of win, win, win, win, and more wins.
I will be presenting on this at the Saturday evening session of ETHOS
(28 Jan in Seattle area), public meeting open to all. Bring your friends.
Group B can include many people in the middle class in the poor
countries. But there are also TLUD stoves for that group, especially
the Forced Air ones like Mimi-Moto and FAABulous.
BIG progress with TLUDs is already moving. More info in the next few
weeks. See you at ETHOS.
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 1/8/2017 2:17 PM, Frank Shields wrote:
>
> Nikhil,
>
> you say:
>
> In the interim period, “better solid fuel stoves” can and should be
> marketed, without any mumbo-jumbo of WHO IAQ Guidelines or standards,
> and the jiggery-pokery of "box models" for concentrations, HAPIT for
> aDALY.
>
> Perhaps the part I don’t understand: If we put our ‘clients’ into
> groups we might have something like this:
> A) the poorest of the poor: no electricity, no LPG, no pellets, very
> little outside support, very little biomass available, perhaps burning
> dung or rice hulls etc.
> B) has pellets and/or limited electricity and/or limited available LPG
> and/or prepared fuels
> C) has all
>
> Are there still a lot of people still in group A? Is that group
> growing or more of them going into group B? Now this would be a useful
> study. : )
>
> This group (on this list serve) is all about helping group A survive
> or advance to group B. Our stoves should be designed and testing
> accordingly using their biomass etc. When people talk about using
> pellets or prepared biomass they are only helping group B. If you talk
> about your stove running on pellets (Paul!) and you want to help group
> A then you need to include and provide a years supply pellets in the
> sale of your stove. Or you just market to group B.
>
> But WE are interested in helping group A - correct? No more talk of
> fans, pellets, or LPG unless you plan to supply the extras needed to
> catapult them into group B.
>
> Improving group A stoves is what we need to do.
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank `
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
> Keith Day Company, Inc.
> 1091 Madison Lane
> Salinas, CA 93907
> (831) 246-0417 cell
> (831) 771-0126 office
> fShields at keithdaycompany.com <mailto:fShields at keithdaycompany.com>
>
>
>
> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
>
>
>
>> On Jan 8, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:miata98 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Frank:
>>
>> You have an excellent statement of a contextualized problem: "We have
>> a situation where the 1) Combustion Chamber is fixed and 2) the
>> available wild biomass to be used is fixed. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN
>> with what we have."
>>
>> And you "we optimize them for the best using available wild biomass
>> that we prepare from the pile of using the equipment they have."
>>
>> I wish this is how the problem of small-scale direct combustion
>> (including small gasifiers for power) were defined for every district
>> in India.
>>
>> Sometimes the biomass is plenty and goes "waste", sometimes it is
>> quite costly to obtain. It's a matter of land rights and access.
>>
>> I also agree "They need competition" and "Quit complaining and get
>> thinking of alternative uses for all the money. Its stupid to require
>> the air be below a specified particle concentration when we are not
>> willing to wire in electricity and handout microwave ovens."
>>
>> Well, UN Foundation, Inc. also has a parallel initiative to GACC, and
>> the GACC CEO may also be the CEO of that -- SE4All (Sustainable
>> Energy for All). It is about providing electricity to everybody.
>> Again there is some Tier dogma about quality and quantity of
>> electricity WITH OUT ANY IDEA OF THE CONTEXT of productive and income
>> capacities.
>>
>> But in some dream world, electricity will solve the household
>> emissions problem. Whether that will make air cleaner, for whom, and
>> save whose lives -- all that will take another boondoggle like ISO
>> IWA for cookstoves.
>>
>> India has a strategy - Electricity and Clean Cooking Strategy for
>> India
>> <http://niti.gov.in/content/electricity-and-clean-cooking-strategy-india>.
>> In the interim period, "better solid fuel stoves" can and should be
>> marketed, without any mumbo-jumbo of WHO IAQ Guidelines or standards,
>> and the jiggery-pokery of "box models" for concentrations, HAPIT for
>> aDALYs.
>>
>> Nikhil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------
>> (US +1) 202-568-5831
>> //
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com
>> <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nikhil,
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:miata98 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Frank:
>>>
>>> Is WBT - or any such non-representative proxy for cooking and
>>> space heating - the only way to determine if some combination of
>>> fuel and device is “clean"?
>>
>> FRANK: To determine if a stove does its job ‘clean’ must be
>> determined at the end when the meal is served. We are going
>> through the 6 Box system and starting with the fuel. We can
>> determine if process is going as it should by testing downstream
>> without going all the way to the end - eliminating many variables
>> found along the way.
>> Box 1) Fuel
>> Box 2 Fuel introduction
>> Box 3 Combustion chamber
>> Box 4 Cooking utensils
>> Box 5 Cooking procedure
>> Box 6 Task completion
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You do seem to agree that there is no [FRANK(rarely)] ”clean
>>> fuel” on its own, just a combination of particular type of fuel
>>> and combustion device, operated under some design basis -
>>> “biomass uniformly prepared, sized and with proper combustion
>>> characteristics known suitable for a specific stove.”
>>> FRANK Correct
>>
>>> But then you say, “We cannot complain about what other groups
>>> are doing with all the money allocated to them for improving
>>> biomass stoves and cleaner air until we give them a direction to
>>> go in."
>>> FRANK Correct
>>
>>> I am afraid that is naive.
>>> FRANK Wrong
>>
>>> For one, if giving directions for "cleaner air" means not just
>>> emission rate testing for representative combinations of fuels,
>>> devices, cuisines in lab and in field but going through the
>>> theology of the "box paradigm" -- what Harold calls the
>>> "conflation" of effects, without going into the diversity of
>>> contexts - all you will get is more of the same. ISO TC 285 to
>>> TC 2850.
>>>
>>> The other reason is that "cleaner air" is not simply cooked up
>>> in boxes by EPA and BAMG. It is the exposure profile for all air
>>> pollutants - not just "criteria pollutants" in the USEPA lingo -
>>> and indeed all health risks that determine the health consequences.
>>>
>>> As Cecil and the ESMAP report I cited three months ago assert,
>>> "contextual" is everything. Until such a time that biomass
>>> stoves provide as much versatility and control, and fit in the
>>> ever-changing time demands on poor women, to speak of "clean
>>> air" from domestic stoves is paramount delusion.
>>>
>>> If nothing else, you will also have to grant GACC/BAMG demands
>>> that any switchover from "dirty fuel" to "clean fuel" (with
>>> stoves) be "permanent, exclusive, and sustained". That is no
>>> stacking. That is the violation of a cook's privacy and
>>> preferences just so GACC and NIH can cook up "evidence base" of
>>> "health effects of clean cooking combinations"??
>>>
>>> I suppose many stovers - in universities and outside - did give
>>> direction at the ISO/IWA back a few years ago (my citation in
>>> the post in response to Harold earlier).
>>>
>>> Air pollution control in developing countries is not a lab job.
>>
>> FRANK: Nikhil - I don’t care about clean air. We have a situation
>> where the 1) Combustion Chamber is fixed and 2) the available
>> wild biomass to be used is fixed. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN with what
>> we have. If five combustion chambers are tested (stoves) we
>> optimize them for the best using available wild biomass that we
>> prepare from the pile of using the equipment they have. They are
>> now ‘clean’ as they can be. If one is cleaner than the others
>> they get the bid for sale. (and fuel availability and quantity is
>> considered). Passes some EPA, BANG, ISO, GACC, NIH, IWA or
>> whatever - WHO CARES when the choice is between Best we can do
>> OR Dirty.
>>
>>> In case of stoves, it has been a hack job.
>>
>> They need competition. We researchers and scientist give them
>> NONE. We need some creative ideas and risk takers at the
>> University level. No guts: no glory.
>>
>> Heres an idea:
>> Helium Surrogate:
>> Get the equipment and see if it can be made to work for what we
>> want. Bleed out gases just before the secondary and determine the
>> distribution and mass balance from the biomass being burned.
>> Determine the best composition for gases to burn the hottest and
>> cleanest. Could end up being a complete waste of a few 100K USD
>> if it doesn’t.
>>
>> Heres an idea:
>> Make pellets starting at high quality in a stove proved to burn
>> them cleanly and hot. Make a series of pellets with: a)
>> increasing ash, b) increasing lipids (pine pitch), c) decreasing
>> carbon density d) increasing moisture e) increasing size f)
>> decreasing size g) increasing lignin etc. etc.
>> Determine the concentration where they start to fail air quality
>> and/or heat. Measure using Helium Surrogate (if it works) the
>> change in gas composition going into the secondary.
>>
>> Perhaps we can optimize the wild biomass used by measure of the
>> composition going into the secondary once we know what to look
>> for - or used to problem solve a poor running combustion chamber.
>>
>> If lipids are found to be a problem develop a test procedure that
>> works in the range we need to look at. We need test procedures
>> for the components found to be important.
>>
>> Then when this is finalized we work on Box 2 :) Fuel
>> Introduction into the combustion chamber. Pellets can be feed in
>> many different ways. Sticks introduced at a rate determine (from
>> the above) to be optimum.
>>
>> Quit complaining and get thinking of alternative uses for all the
>> money.
>>
>> Its stupid to require the air be below a specified particle
>> concentration when we are not willing to wire in electricity and
>> handout microwave ovens.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>> An inside job.
>>>
>>> Time to end the pretense.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Nikhil
>>>
>>> //
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Frank Shields
>>> <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 7, 2017, at 7:34 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>>>> <crispinpigott at outlook.com
>>>> <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Stovers
>>>> What on earth is a “clean fuel”?
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Crispin
>>>
>>> Its biomass uniformly prepared, sized and with proper
>>> combustion characteristics known suitable for a specific stove.
>>>
>>> We cannot complain about what other groups are doing with
>>> all the money allocated to them for improving biomass stoves
>>> and cleaner air until we give them a direction to go in. Not
>>> having a direction and complaining just goes in circles - as
>>> we have been doing for YEARS! The only direction (for now)
>>> is “What Preparation is Required for a Biomass to work in
>>> Paul’s Champion TLUD Stove? And How Best is That Done?”
>>>
>>> There is a big pile of biomass from a local community -
>>> what do we need to know about it and how best to size it for
>>> the Champion?
>>>
>>> We need (1) an equipped PRIVATE lab (no Universities) (2)
>>> creative personal (3) the stove (4) the biomass (5) money -
>>> and funders need to know this is research and not all
>>> research ends in grand success (as required by
>>> Universities). Ten steps backwards and one forward. The
>>> one’s forward add up over time.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170108/4d0f1c30/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list