[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

Thu Jun 1 07:09:16 CDT 2017

Crispin:

I lecture you all the time "Do not rush to ascribe to conspiracy that which
mere stupidity would suffice to explain."

But in this instance, I smell a rat. There seems to be a disconnect between
EPA stove testing and cooking. Because there is nobody from the "cooking"
business that is engaged.

This is so unlike anything I have ever observed in the past - from power
plant and industrial boiler emissions regulations to even the residential
wood heater regulations. As a regulator, EPA has to engage the industry it
affects, understand the economic context of technology, evaluate control
options that meet the basic "service standard" (certain type of steam, say)
and justify them in terms of specific objective -- compliance with ambient
air quality standards.

Here what has happened is that a small junket has been started up by EPA
for cookstove testing when it has no jurisdiction over cookstove regulation
in its own country - US - leave alone the rest of the world. Nobody has
required it to engage the stove designers and users around the world. There
is no service standard - there cannot be one for some "integrated" cooking
solution. (There can be some for rice cooker, tortilla maker, griddle,
grill, whatever; you have those for gas and electric appliances, which are
NOT regulated by EPA by the way.)

Yes, a research junket with no sensible oversight.

But not without a purpose. The purpose is to acquire -- or pretend to
acquire -- enough emissions data to go on justifying the preference for LPG
and electricity. First begin by condemning solid fuels as "dirty fuels",
then keep testing new biomass stoves so they can be dismissed as "not truly
health protective" (Kirk Smith's mantra).

Of course, nobody is going to admit in public that this is the intent.
Perhaps it is not, it is only the impact.

I too favor expansion of access to gas and electricity - and solar, biogas,
as also biomass combustion devices that are "clean enough" and USABLE - but
I don't need this raft of irrelevant data on particle size.

EPA and its contractor can go on doing what they wish, but we should
recognize this drama for what it is -- a research junket.

Not everything that goes on in the name of science qualifies to be treated
as such. And certainly not something that pretends to be science in service
of public. I would be hard pressed to accept that EPA research junket - in
collaboration with its contractors in Berkeley and in Approvecho - has done
much for the 5 billion poor (cohorts past and future) that have subjected
to IHME's Killing by Assumption.

If this is too opaque for people to understand, you and I need to design a
webinar on designing new clothes for the emperor and the queens.

Nikhil

------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(India +91)909 995 2080
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Paul
>
> I generally concur with your comments about the selection. Jim, I have a
> suggestion: how about asking the stovers for recommendations for models and
> then do another set of tests?
>
> I am particularly pleased to see some parallel tests using far more
> realistic fuel moisture choices. I don't believe anything about emissions
> from a stove using fuel with 5% a moisture content. ‎Fuel moisture has a
> powerful influence on emissions of PM and VOC's.
>
> I would recommend stoves that have had at least 1000 sales on a commercial
> basis (excludes stoves bought by an org and given away) and those which are
> seen by 'us' to be representative of the state of the art.
>
> Included in that category are the TLUD made by Sujatha and one or more
> models from Prime and Dr Nurhuda.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
> Stovers,
>
> I previously asked:
> On 5/31/2017 11:22 AM, Paul Anderson wrote:
>
>
> 11 fuel-stove combinations covering a variety of fuels and different
> stoves are investigated for UFP emissions and PNSD.
>
> I am interested in knowing if those 11 included what I consider to be the
> better versions of TLUD stoves, both natural draft and forced air.
>
>
> I have now seen the article, and provide comments ABOUT THE STOVES
> SELECTED.   This is NOT about the quality of measurements, etc.
>
> 1.  For purposes of review comments, I am allowed to provide some selected
> information from  the publication:
>
>
> **********************************
> Of interest (to me) are numbers 4, 6, 10, and 11.
>  #4.  Stove Tec Prototype.  Lousy choice to be representing TLUD-FA
> stoves.  This is old by TLUD standards.
> It was tested years ago with great results.   Only one unit ever made, as
> far as I know..
>
> #6.  Belonio TLUD-FA (or FD) with rice husk fuel.  Poor choice.  Again, an
> older stove that did not go into
> [much] production, and using a non-woody fuel when all other comparisons
> of solid fuels are wood.
>
> #10.  Although Philips, it is a rocket stove, and not of main interest.
> #12.   The Philips high-turbulance fan-jet stove.   This is NOT designed
> for nor used in TLUD fashion.
>
> Net result:  This research tells us information that is of very little use
> and is not representative of the state of
> the art of TLUD stoves, whether FA or ND.
>
> ***************************************
> Crispin also guided me to another study by essentially the same group:
> "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Fine Particulate Matter Emitted
> from Burning Kerosene, Liquid Petroleum Gas, and Wood Fuels in
> Household Cookstoves"
> Guofeng Shen,† William Preston,‡ Seth M. Ebersviller,§ Craig Williams,‡
> Jerroll W. Faircloth,∥
> James J. Jetter,*,⊥ and Michael D. Hays⊥
>
> The solid-fuel (wood) stoves in this study were
> "(iii) wood (10 and 30% moisture content on a wet basis) in a forced-draft
> fan stove, and (iv) wood
> in a natural-draft rocket cookstove."
>
> Rockets did not do well (and not an issue with me).   But the
> "forced-draft fan stove" that also was not optimal is
> of interest to me.   What TLUD-FA stove did they choose?   An "Eco-chula
> XXL" which is seen at:
> http://www.ecochula.co.in/xxl.html
>
> I my opinion, that was a terrible choice, (large diameter gives worse
> emissions, and is not representative of household cooking) and therefore
> the TLUD-FA  results of this study are not representative.   From the TLUD
> perspective, this study only contributed to the PERCEPTION (erroneous in my
> opinion) that TLUD-FA stoves are not very good.
>
> The Mimi Moto TLUD-FA has been available since 2015.   That would have
> been a much better choice.
> And certainly the Champion TLUD-ND  (available since about 2008) is the
> best choice for that category stove, but is never included.
>
> FYI, Except for the BEIA project in Uganda with the Mwoto TLUD-ND, I have
> never been asked about what TLUD stoves might best be include in testing or
> in research projects.    Never.      Not by EPA or CSU or Aprovecho or
> Berkeley or D-Lab or anyone else.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170601/c46b0d28/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: klkcahfhliphglbf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 97273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170601/c46b0d28/attachment.png>