[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott crispinpigott at outlook.com
Wed May 31 16:04:16 CDT 2017


Here is a compelling argument to address the performance  of solid fuel stoves:

[cid:image002.jpg at 01D2DA61.8E071F40]

The only difference was to change the stove. Everything else was the same. The result of the stove exchange is that the home is much warmer (about 5 C). The drop in nasal congestion, running nose and bronchitis is directly related to the children no longer living in a chronically under-heated home.

These numbers are not from health modeling, they are medical diagnoses. I take this to be another example from the winter stove pilot programme of the health benefits of burning solid fuels efficiently in stoves with good construction (no leaks).

That this could be achieved without changing the fuel (they use Kara-Keche coal) is significant because there was no fuel subsidy, no distribution network needed, and the stoves were produced locally, 100%, except the bolts and steel sheeting. Everything else was manufactured or recycled locally. Obviously they were locally cut and welded.

If the issue is PM, this was also achieved in three sample houses:

[cid:image005.jpg at 01D2DA61.8E071F40]

WHO AQ targets met without switching to non-solid fuels.

Is everyone happy now?

Not a chance! Nearly eliminating medical conditions related to smoke and chronic underheating and delivering air so clean that virtually none of the IAP can be attributed to the stove (there are lots of other sources in a rural home) does not achieve the underlying agenda.  From the beginning it was clear that the goal was to promote certain fuels, subsidy mechanisms, funding control mechanisms and testing equipment, and of course test methods and personnel.

What has prevented the GACC, EPA, Berkeley, DfID, DGIS, GIZ and Shell from getting the results they want? It is basically the stonewalling of every attempt to correct the obvious and hidden errors in the test methods, the rating systems, the health impact modeling, and the very limited view as to what to measure, what to measure it with, how well it should be measured and why.

Leadership on all these matters has shifted South-South. The money is sure to follow.

Regards
Crispin



I was responding to posts on the list by Crispin, Paul, and you. If you are so concerned about “context”, consider the specific context of the research paper instead of using it as cannon fodder for your favorite themes. My previous unanswered question is, ”So, what?” What are your solutions to the litany of issues that you keep repeating? If everything is so wrong how do we make it right? What are the compelling health arguments for improving cookstoves? What are the appropriate metrics?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 80650 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170531/7ac97a4c/attachment.bin>


More information about the Stoves mailing list