[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
Nikhil Desai
pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 7 10:39:22 CDT 2017
Wouldn't this be dismissed as "stacking" by the priests of premature
mortality?
Nikhil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(India +91) 909 995 2080
*Skype: nikhildesai888*
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> Philip, list, Roger:
>
> This “Integrated” site is from 2005 or we would see TLUDs mentioned I
> believe: http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Integrated_Cooking_Method .
>
> There are plenty of reasons for this list to be supportive of more solar
> cooking.
>
> Ron
>
> On Jun 6, 2017, at 1:19 AM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
>
> 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 <+91%2090999%2052080>
> 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 <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
> <+91%2090999%2052080>
> 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 <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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170607/dd0ded0f/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list