[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

Mon Jun 5 16:40:04 CDT 2017

I just wish GACC would drop its obsession to push clean cooking with fossil fuels as its lead strategy. It's a low sustainability agenda subsiding fossil fuels and money intensive. It's no better than a win-lose. 

The future for much of the world for clean cooking will be with cheap renewable solar power. It is dropping in price at 20%/year. Check out this video how it will be a disruptive technology for the entire energy sector.  
Clean Disruption - Why Conventional Energy & Transportation will be Obsolete by 2030 - Oslo, March 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxryv2XrnqM&feature=youtu.be

The nice thing about solar powered cooking with electricity is that in much of the developing world, lunch is a big part of the thermal energy demand for cooking. Many overburdened women simply re-heat food for dinner to save labour and fuel.  Renewable power from solar energy is a great fit. You can do most of your cooking when power is cheapest and most reliable. We need to see more cookstove innovations around renewable solar including integrating solar thermal and electric cooking and heat retaining devices.  

regards

Roger

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 6/4/17, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
 To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
 Received: Sunday, June 4, 2017, 1:56 PM

 Tom: 

 I agree. It is the US, Europe,
 and Japan experience from the 1960s and the 1970s that I
 learned the history of clean air legislation and regulation
 across the board. Later, while working on domestic coal use
 in China, Vietnam, South Korea and Mongolia that I realized
 how the easiest quick gains were in industrial and power
 plant shutdowns/relocation, city gas rehabilitation, and
 just plain new urban habitats. Towns and villages were and
 are still a problem as far as ambient air pollution goes. In
 India, peri-urban pollution from wastes, brick-making,
 chemical spills is tremendous. 

 Why, the last I checked in 2015, India did not
 even have emission standards for coal-fired power plants.
 (The government had proposed some draft standards for all
 "thermal" power plants, without any mention of
 averaging periods or measurement protocols). 

 And GACC fantasizes regulating
 500+ million stoves in this environment? Oversight by its
 "implementation science" experts with not a
 quantum of real life experience in regulatory
 compliance? 

 Wow. It takes
 such courage to believe in GACC and "clean cooking
 solutions". 

 I sent
 you one e-mail with different way of looking at stoves. As
 far as the "way forward" goes, I do truly believe
 people need to first be prepared to break away from the
 decades long obsession with poor households (without
 understanding the cooks and their immediate environments,
 interests, assets) and energy efficiency. It is only by
 saying "NONE OF THIS ANY MORE" that they will turn
 to something else. 

 I see
 such energies rising in some quarters. Please be patient. I
 will design a strategy to spend $20 m to raise and spend $1
 billion. Spending money well is not at all easy. And if
 there is no money to spend, why bother devising a way
 forward? Isn't the whole donor class taken in by TC
 285's "international standards"? 

 Isn't GACC looking to
 raise $500+ m in Delhi this October? Why don't we ask
 how it has spent money to date and how it plans to spend it
 in the future, other than holding "summits" for
 black carbon to advocate banning of coal? 

 I beg your pardon and
 patience.
 Nikhil

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

 On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at
 10:26 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>
 wrote:
 Quantifying improvements in
 the complicated environments of households is clearly a
 challenge but stovers on this list see improvements from
 their efforts which is why we keep working at it.
      If you weren’t around
 Europe and the US in the 1970s you wouldn’t appreciate how
 much wood stove and industrial emissions regulation has
 helped air quality and public health. Ask any asthmatic.
   We can blog all day but where
 are the suggestions for a path forward? What do you propose?
 Where is the data? What is the expected outcome?
  How can existing forums be
 used to raise the issues and propose solutions? Who are the
 peers who should review the process? If you were to pick a
 team who would they be? How are the peers different than
 those intimately involved in design, development, testing
 and policy who we see here, at Ethos, or in Warsaw?
   Crispin has made a start
 below. Tom   From: Stoves
 [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.b
 ioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Crispin
 Pemberton-Pigott
 Sent: Thursday, June
 01, 2017 1:18 PM
 To: Stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.o
 rg>
 Subject: Re:
 [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of
 Cookstoves Dear
 Nikhil I
 think the idea of a webinar on the subject is a great idea.
 What has been emerging on this list over the past few months
 is a much more professional look at what is needed in the
 servicing of the domestic energy
 sector.  It is
 important to get straight what the problems and
 opportunities are, and what solutions can be implemented on
 what time scale.  While
 you have made repeated mention of the health angle and the
 current hubris being based on the suspect work and methods
 of people you have personally know for years. That makes
 your perspective invaluable because no one else here has
 that, or chooses to remain
 silent.  You
 were absent when I was making a very loud fuss about the
 sophomoric conceptual errors in the WBT and the refusal of
 Aprovecho and Berkeley (they were de facto in charge of it
 at the time. The result was resistance from the EPA (PCIA at
 the time) and the authors of course. After a
 purpose-convened conference in Seattle, the EPA relented,
 basically on the say-so of Kirk Smith who used as an escape
 route the fact that the WBT 3.1 had never been peer
 reviewed. That led to the development of
 WBT4. It
 took a long time and WBT4.x has most of the original errors
 buried in the WBT sine 1985 so that cannot be called a
 success.  You
 have had a lot more authority to challenge the IHME and
 aDALY (wild) estimates because you worked with this crowd
 and know that they themselves laugh‎ and chortle about how
 ridiculous the numbers
 are.  Suppose we took a different tack this
 time: lay out the basic lessons in a series of topics and
 ‎post them here. Get volunteers to agree to provide input
 sections.  Ask
 the EPA to host them under the Winrock label but require
 that you chair the events, or Harold Annegarn or someone
 with equal experience in the world of physical
 testing.  If
 that doesn't appeal to them, ask the WB to host them.
 The C4D website can host the outputs. ‎With a proper
 review of how to get the health-related metrics identified,
 and what does and does not constitute a valid calculated
 number, we will save a lot of time and
 money.  I
 think there has been enough demonstration that there are
 things seriously wrong with the concatenated steps that lead
 to the IMHE numbers to point to this
 need. 

 I am
 not saying we‎ can cure the witchcraft of the aDALY
 business, but consider the alternative, using the WBT as an
 example.  The
 WBT had irreproducible results and anointed stoves that
 failed to perform in the field anything ‎like they were
 claimed to have in the lab. No surprise
 there.  The
 WBT4 process started off well, then a group from Aprovecho
 and Berkeley and the University of Colorado ‎went off on
 their own and produce a slightly updated version retaining
 nearly all the systematic errors of v3.1. Significantly,
 Kirk doesn't use it, presumably because it has not been
 peer reviewed and/or he did, and it is not fixed.
 Either way after all the shouting and rewriting was done, we
 as a stove community were no better off. Five years later
 Xavier is still trying to get the GACC to forswear it and
 admit that all the past test results were
 defective.  Now
 what will happen if the health angle is not corrected on the
 first major repair job in a decade? We have very
 successfully brought large amounts of money into the
 domestic cooking and heating sector, internationally. How is
 it going to look if expert reviewers start digging into the
 swamp of aDALYs and IHME before we have a chance to drain
 it? ‎Surely there are legitimate ways
 of applying performance and stats to budgets legitimising
 stove programmes without just making things up? Of course
 there are. At present there is so much institutional risk in
 stove projects many of the big-ups shy away with vigour.
 They know the aDALY numbers are cooked up like a boiled
 ham.  If we
 have to reconstruct the justifications from scratch and
 first principles, so be it. A good place to start is within
 our community of enthusiasts and servicing
 personnel.  How
 about some more ideas? You should think about how you could
 train field investigators using webinars.
  RegCrispin   ‎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,
 PhDEmail:  psanders at ilstu.eduSkype:  
 paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072Website: 
 www.drtlud.com   
 ______________________________
 _________________

 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/