[Stoves] Leaping about

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Improved Biomass Stove Fans

From

LPG fuel subsidies in Latin America and the use of solid fuels to cook
Karin Troncoso, Agnes Soares da Silva (Energy Policy 107 (2017) 188-196)
Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization, 525 23 St. NW., Washington, DC 20037, USA

“In Mexico, despite the fact that most of the population has physical access to LPG, it has been documented that some people stop using LPG once they have an improved biomass stove (Masera et al., 2005; Berrueta et al., 2007). From a health perspective, this is a leap backwards.”

While the sources are a little dated now, the fact that people switch to biomass once it is made ‘acceptable’ is valuable information. I think it is a bit of a leap (false statement) to say ‘it is a leap backwards’. The ‘energy ladder’ is an abstract construct that exists in the minds of the Development Set.

First, there is no field assessment included in the statement that ‘health was negatively affected’ by using an improved biomass stove. In most cases the improvement includes a chimney, not so? Aren’t these 100% improved plancha stoves with a chimney? If all the ‘emissions’ are put out side, then the health impact between using LPG in an unventilated kitchen and wood fuel in a ventilated on are probably comparable (anyone have measurements?).

Second, there is nothing ‘backward’ about biomass as a fuel. There are some bass-ackwards implementations of burning it, but deprecating an entire fuel class??  We can do a lot better than that.

So the old saw about ‘solid fuels cannot be burned cleanly enough to provide health benefits’ is once again on our table. Where does this nonsense come from? Who is sustaining this nonsense?  In whose interest is this nonsense repeated and repeated as if it was true?

There has to be some accountability. If measurements are not accompanied by uncertainties, and claims are not based on measurements, there should be no expectation that funding will follow.

There is another aspect of this whole ‘cooking’ thing which is that many populations do not consider heating water to be ‘cooking’. A stove that is used to cook and heat water and heat the living space is a triple-function device, not doing double-duty. The separation of cooking from water heating is very obvious in many kitchens. I will be making a point of this in Warsaw. For stoves to be acceptable they have to perform the expected functions.

Famously the 2011 (?) national census in Indonesia asked the question, “What is you main cooking fuel” and 40% selected ‘biomass’ as the answer. Another 40% marked, ‘LPG’ and the rest chose ‘kerosene’ or ‘electricity’. What this single question did not unearth (but the stove anthropologist Cecil Cook did) is that 70% of that first 40% use LPG some of the time for cooking food or making tea (a cooking function and a water heating function), and 70% of the LPG users heat water with wood.  Wow!

So 68% of the population uses biomass to heat water, not counting those using electricity and kerosene for cooking who were not asked about their wood fuel use. Certainly the total is above 75% using biomass.

Is all biomass fuel use a step backwards?

Asked why the use wood, the universal answer is, ‘to save money.’  Is saving money always a step backwards? If fuel costs more is it a step forwards?

There seems to be a smidgeon of arrogance in this matter of who is moving backwards.

Regards
Crispin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 52214 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170523/33fbab91/attachment.bin>