[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
Philip Lloyd
plloyd at mweb.co.za
Tue Jun 6 02:19:56 CDT 2017
I recall a message 30 years ago "The future for much of the world for clean cooking will be with cheap renewable solar power." A few years passed, and I wrote "The road to the North is littered with abandoned solar cookers." We found:
1. Cooking is a personal thing. Cooks like to be involved, to stir, to taste, to season, to improve. Just sitting and waiting is 'wrong'
2. One cloudy day, one family of unfed children, one less solar cooker
3. Nature abhors a vacuum - monkeys, warthogs, porcupines, even passers-by, found the food too attractive to leave in the sun.
There may be places in the world where none of this applies, or where people have learned to use the cookers when the sun shines, but it is not a general solution to the cooking problem.
Philip Lloyd
Behalf Of Roger Samson
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 11:40 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; ndesai at alum.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
More information about the Stoves
mailing list