[Stoves] News 23 Jan 2017: Scrapping the worst pollution-emitting stoves could prevent 22.5 million early deaths by 2100

[Frank Shields]

Nikhil,

The surrogate is all about learning more about the conditions for the best combustion. Then using it to ‘read’ what is taking place and monitoring adjustments that are made. I think more can be done measuring the gases just before the secondary. Not after. And the surrogate allows for very accurate measurements as the solid turns to a gas - IF IT WORKS! 

It is obvious (to me) that the limiting factor now is providing a homogenous fuel for the stove. A lot can be improved if the available fuel is sized and moisture controlled over anything else we do. Once that is done the next step is study the combustion. 

We cannot make and present a test procedure now. We have more work to do and that means money and a good lab to do the right work. Labs also need to stay in business and that means to have samples received, work done and payments made. That is why I do not suggest we give up on the WBT until we assign the labs another task to do regarding stove testing. It will not be good to lose the stove testing labs. There will be plenty of work for them to do if what I am thinking ever takes place. 

With all the modern testing equipment I believe we can take biomass stoves to a new level. Once we know what gas mix we want and the adjustments needed to achieve that we can really fine tune these little stoves. But just a pipe dream?
    
Regards

Frank






> On Jan 26, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Frank: 
> 
> Bingo!! 
> 
> I think you got it right -- and it is all "contextual", as Cecil would say. 
> 
> You have targeted some serious errors in the IWA work so far - as far as I can tell, their test methods not only ignore chemical data and operational characteristics (feeding the fuel, a surrogate perhaps for controllability, a critical feature), they also simply cook up "air quality" based on lab test emission rates. [Well, TC 285 may not do this; their error is accepting emission rates targets in the first place, which WHO derives from some spurious backcasting of burden of disease to exposures to concentrations to emission profiles, not rates. It is the BAMG that then takes emission rates to air quality via spurious "box modeling". IWA should not have endorsed WHO's PM2.5 emissions rate nonsense in the first place.]
> 
> Doing things "right" to please the cook is one thing, to please WHO (who? what business do they have?) is another. 
> 
> WHO/BAMG/EPA will cook up only "academic stoves" (like Hyman Rickover's "academic reactor".) 
> 
> Blessed by academics so they can go on with GACC blather about "complete and irreversible" transition to "clean cookstoves" (on which precision is lacking, hence the charade of WBT). 
> 
> I would add "thermal storage" as an option, or a small fridge can serve the purpose -- cook a lot once a day or every third day, cooked food is "stored cooking energy". (With UN blather about "Sustainable Energy for All" - our UNF Inc. friends are promoting universal electricity access after all. 
> 
> Or with electricity for all, some 20-30% of the household cooking energy demand otherwise sought to be satisfied with biomass stoves would be shaved off by electricity in and outside the household. 
> 
> The world changes, but some stovers are still stuck on WBT. Or stuck in 1970s mindset. (I give them credit - after all, some of the world's poor do still live in 19th Century conditions when it comes to fuels.) 
> 
> Nikhil
> --------- 
> (India +91) 909 995 2080
>  
> 
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
> Dear Nikhil,
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:48 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com <mailto:miata98 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Research targets cookstove pollution using supercomputers and NASA satellites <https://phys.org/news/2017-01-cookstove-pollution-supercomputers-nasa-satellites.html> Phys.Org <http://phys.org/> and Scrapping the worst pollution-emitting stoves could prevent 22.5 million early deaths by 2100 <http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scrapping-worst-pollution-emitting-stoves-could-prevent-22-5-million-early-deaths-by-2100-1602626> International Business Times UK.
>> 
>> Give some kids "supercomputers and NASA satellites" to come up with "better biomass stoves", I wonder. 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Give some kids supercomputers and combustion data 1) helium surrogate pre-secondary 2) [BOX 1] fuel data (physical and chemical) 3) [BOX 2] fuel method of adding to the combustion chamber 4) air monitoring data  to come up with "better biomass stoves", I wonder.  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Frank
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
> Keith Day Company, Inc.
> 1091 Madison Lane
> Salinas, CA  93907
> (831) 246-0417 <tel:(831)%20246-0417> cell
> (831) 771-0126 <tel:(831)%20771-0126> office
> fShields at keithdaycompany.com <mailto:fShields at keithdaycompany.com>
> 
> 
> 
> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 

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



franke at cruzio.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170126/a6c89702/attachment.html>