[Stoves] PM emissions from engines

Wed Jun 7 13:03:11 CDT 2017

Crispin (and others):

May I please request that any post you intend that I address be sent to my
e-mail address?
----------
Now in response to Crispin:

Thank you for some clarifications. I do surely agree "The metric PM mass/MJ
NET is OK, if you remember to multiple the MJ delivered by the increase in
heat ‘desired’ and provided. If you deliver 40% more heat and only reduce
the BC 20% per MJNET things are worse on the BC score." If at all,  you
have raised the problem of "context" -- mere physical metrics please
environmentalist maniacs, but carry zero credibility with me. It is the
total cost, total "satisfaction" subject to that cost curve, that interests
me. Tracking BC emissions at the level of individual users in the name of
saving the cryosphere is sheer lunacy. Makes money, I guess.

Let's wait till full reports are drafted. (I trust there's enough money for
such, even if not published in a peer-reviewed journal.)

1. I don't understand "The outdoor air is extremely clean in KG." Were all
heating stoves emitting only indoors with no ventilation or leakage?

2. The parts of Malawi I have travelled - Lilongwe, Blantyre, down south to
a distillery, east to the lake, and places in between - do not get as cold
as Central Asia (of which I only know Afghanistan and Mongolia). I assume
dwellings and neighborhoods to be different, as also the baseline nutrition
and health characteristics.

In any case, I do not have much interest in small-scale, short-term results
that carry too many qualifications for any generalizations and too little
information for *context-specific design* of stoves or interventions.

My bias against "science" shows? I learned science, and then I learned
science policy and technology policy. What may count as an advance in
scientists' knowledge -- as I get older, I realize that everybody's
"baseline ignorance" is expanding -- is not necessarily relevant to
policymaking.

To me, quantification of "health impacts of stoves" is a red herring, as is
everything else the stover community has blindly worshipped over the years
- forests, climate stability, protection of the weak. All arguments are
generally worthy of ASSUMPTIONS, as Ron now has gaily and gallantly
conceded, but not all quantification is worth squat.

Let me now state my bias in a somewhat reluctant manner (because I am not
convinced it helps analysis): I see the "dirty cooking" problem not
primarily as a health problem, as Kirk Smith argues, but as a poverty
problem. It is the insecurity of livelihoods, of food and fuel, of many
aspects of health (stunting to diseases), that keeps poor people from
making the transition to "modern cooking" - clean enough, convenient and
reliable enough. Not all 500+ million people suffer such insecurities and
poverties in the same manner; I don't know how to go about characterizing
and analyzing them. I have tired of the physicists' and sociologists'
approaches so far, and have advocated transition to LPG - and pressure
cookers - but that doesn't address the question Tom Miles has asked of me
-- What should be done differently?

I have a beginning of an answer, but it doesn't go to the core intellectual
query -- how are different poverty processes playing out in the kitchens
and the hearths?

The only inkling I have is observing the dramatic transformation of the
world food systems in the last 30-odd years and the rapid shifts, at all
income levels and all parts of the world (in cities at least, and remember,
the developing world is rapidly urbanizing), in "outsourcing the kitchen."

That is, while we argue about smoke, people have started buying processed
foods and prepared meals.

Don't worry; the market for space heating - cleaner, safer, more
comfortable, modern space heating technologies - will keep growing.

Nikhil

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

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Nikhil
>
>
>
> I think I should expand a little so there is less confusion, or as little
> as possible for the moment.
>
>
>
> The KG (Kyrgyzstan abbreviation) involved both some before and after
> measurements (48 hrs) with 51 homes participating and a control group (20
> homes) which did not receive a new stove. In TJ (Tajikistan) we had 40
> homes with new stoves. In TJ we measured temperatures and fuel consumption
> including time of loading and frequency. No IAQ.
>
>
>
> The outdoor air is extremely clean in KG. Any avoided leakage that was
> turned into outdoor emissions has no meaningful effect on air coming into
> homes. Clearly the circumstances with Malawi were different in that
> respect, but that does not mean the studies were functionally different. By
> that I mean both monitored a cohort with and without improved stoves, and
> both tracked their health with the ‘difference’ being the exchange of
> cooking and or heating products.
>
>
>
> I think changing the stoves in KG produced health and financial impacts
> that were predictable. The things we have yet to parse is which health
> changes were produced by the room being warmer and which by air being
> cleaner. The inclination of smoke people is to sae the cleaner air, but I
> am far from convinced.  I want to see the whole report and temperature
> data. We should be able to construct a chart showing the progressively
> better effects of heating properly to a high and higher temperature up to
> say, 25 C which is apparently their preferred temperature. A warmer kitchen
> brings higher social status. A colder kitchen brings sniffles, coughs,
> bronchitis and makes colds and flu worse.
>
>
>
> I find it odd that smoke is held to be a disease agent for URT and LRT. As
> you say, a stove is not a pill. What are the co-factors for URT? That is
> way above my pay grade.
>
>
>
> I have written to the participants in the Warsaw BC Summit pointing out
> that to reduce BC is not only a matter of calculating a reduction in PM per
> delivered MJ (which is a good metric) but also of adding BC emitted
> according to the extra Joules that were delivered to the home once the
> stove was up to the task of doing so with less fuel. Remember I reported
> that the stoves are delivering about 40% more heat with 40% less fuel. The
> metric PM mass/MJNET is OK, if you remember to multiple the MJ delivered
> by the increase in heat ‘desired’ and provided. If you deliver 40% more
> heat and only reduce the BC 20% per MJNET things are worse on the BC
> score.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Crispin:
>
> I take a different view on your comparison of Kyrgyzstan v. Malawi
> studies. From what I can tell of the Kyrgyz study - I haven't yet read full
> report on methodology and results - it is qualitatively different from the
> Malawi study in various respects, the main one being that the former is for
> the same households before and after an intervention whereas the latter had
> a different fuel/stove combination altogether.
>
> Also, I maintain heating and cooking are different functionalities, so to
> call these two studies "functionally the same" is mistaken. That "changing
> the stove improves health in specific ways" is not - repeat, NOT - obvious
> and categorical for all cookstoves.
>
> Besides, the "neighborhood" effect may not be insignificant. In
> Kyrgyzstan, the intervention stoves may have emissions too low to have made
> any effect outdoors, which was probably not the case in Malawi.
>
> In short, I do not give much weight to household emissions and exposure
> testing. Your Kyrgyz project needs to be implemented at scale to show an
> overall "modernization" impact that I expect of it - better comfort,
> insulated homes, better windows, what not.
>
> Too much money is being made off talking about poor people's lungs. People
> are more than oxidation machines.
>
> And cookstoves are also more than oxidation machines.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
>
> (India +91) 909 995 2080 <+91%2090999%2052080>
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew sez:
>
> "Okay, so far part of a good answer: so are you actually saying that
> indoor air pollution is not a quantifiable cause of bad health, yet we know
> respiring particulates is?‎"
>
> Exactly. We can claim that indoor air pollution has a negative, if
> unquantified, impact on health. Quantifying that impact is expensive.
>
> The Malawi study and the Kyrgyzstan study are functionally the same:
> observe the health of HH members one by one in homes with and without the
> stoves claimed to be improved. ‎The Kyrgyzstan investigation also measured
> the exposure to which individuals were subjected which is about as good as
> it gets.
>
> The results were quite different. In Malawi the background PM overwhelmed
> any impact / reduction in exposure caused by the stove, at least on a
> macro-impact level. Child respiratory infections did not change in a
> statistically significant way. In Kyrgyzstan the needle moved to zero which
> is very significant.
>
> Was the disease in the unimproved stove homes caused by smoke? Low room
> temperature throughout the day? Cold at night? Gases not considered
> measurable PM?
>
> It is clear the effect was produced by the stove system. In house after
> house the effect was seen, not just taken together and shown
> 'statistically'.
>
> So we can take that as 'obvious and categorical evidence' that changing
> the stove improves health in specific ways. To claim that PM causes
> bronchitis is a stretch, however. PM is not a disease agent any more than a
> stove is a pill. Removing all PM from a chronically under-heated home
> ‎might have no effect at all.
>
> For all the noise usually made about how women do all the cooking and
> young children hang around them ‎getting exposed, the Kyrgyzstan project
> showed that men are more exposed to PM2.5 than everyone else. Put that in
> your corn-cobbie and smoke it!
>
> In the Naryn region, Dr Sooronbaev says 100% of adults over 40 have COPD‎.
> That is probably caused directly by exposure to stove smoke indoors.
>
> Crispin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170607/18e2ac8f/attachment.html>