[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

Wed May 31 16:07:03 CDT 2017

Tom:

As a general rule, the only thing I dish out free are opinions - which
means insults as well as praises.

But I will make an exception for you and those others on the List who may
have bothered to read what I write and may have thought me worthy of
attention if I don't, um, "rant".

Let me ask you to ponder over my questions as I finish the quick short
"practical plan" I started writing two days ago but couldn't complete.
 (Not without snide comments, I am sorry; you told me some time ago that it
is difficult for a dog to change his tricks.)

1. What do you think are the principal tenets of the "stoves" enterprise as
to what the problem is, whose problem it is, what they have done about it
in the last 30 years, and what the science of "solid fuel combustion for
cooking" expects to deliver to the common cook in poor households in Asia,
Africa and Latin America in the next 10-20 years? (If you think there are
any "success stories" to gloat over except for more efficient charcoaling
and more efficient charcoal stoves, please let me know. My test is one
million users consistently over a five year period, then at least a third
of them buying a second stove of same usual type.)

2. What do you think is wrong with stove science as described in 1) for
non-charcoal solid biomass that has resulted in the rather sorry state of
affairs by now recognized by nearly everybody (and continuously hammered on
by Kirk Smith for biomass stoves not being "truly health protective"?)

3. Do you think the WHO Emission Rate Targets for Tier 4 solid fuel stoves
are achievable in actual practice with any of the stove types that have
sold, say, to half a million customers and their use observed for two
years? If such stoves are yet to be developed, how long would their field
experience have to be in order to convince the users to buy them? (Or are
we only selling to donors who have been made fools of often enough with
fantastic promises and such self-righteousness)?

4. Finally, what in the current state of "stove science" must be protected
- e.g., the WBT, or "fuel-free", "cook-free" approach Approvecho takes
(wait for my post on that, along with an anthropologist's commentary on
stoves programs)?

I think there is a serious risk that old habits of thinking -- worshiping
biomass as "renewable energy" or "carbon-neutral energy" indiscriminately
(as if fuels have virtues and vices, not combustion processes and cooks) --
exacerbated by unwarranted claims of climate protection, women's
empowerment, and promises of aDALYs, will keep the stoves entreprise mired
in the muck it has been for decades.

You don't have to take my word for it. Neither you nor I need to name
names, but most of us know where the "dominant paradigm" has led
governments and multilateral organizations to put their money -- and be
disappointed at the results (except in charcoal business). And, EQUALLY,
what more promising avenues for stove development - design appropriate to
the context of fuel economics and cooks' time use preferences if nothing
else - have been neglected or ignored?

Why don't we have such a discussion from your side, who has spent decades
nurturing discussion on this list? Is it too much to ask that instead of
dismissing my criticism as rant, there be a serious self-examination? One
only has to read the Up in Smoke
<http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/smoke-india-perfect-cookstove>
article from two years ago on the massive failures of the top-down stoves
programs of India; I can provide other examples of how "stoves programs"
have gained such notoriety and bad reputation.

There are so many ideas about biomass fuel processing and about stove
designs.Why, pray tell, has GACC not committed $100 million to the design
and testing of ten types of stoves for ten types of fuels with five
different sizes?

Oh, now I am leading you on to "practical plan" I need to write on. I think
a few months ago I did propose a $500 m or $1 b plan for Hillary and Ivanka
to support together. I was deadly serious about that one; that is my
estimate of what it would take to have a new generation of fuel/stoves in
and outside households firmly planted in the energy economies of the
developing countries (and perhaps also Europe and US, who can produce both
fuels and stoves).

Please bear with me as I write - try to - about what needs to be done
differently.

Then you can tear it to pieces as you feel like.

Nikhil

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

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
>
> *From:* Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:55 PM
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.
> org>
> *Cc:* Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>; Jim Jetter <jetter.jim at epa.gov>;
> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>; Paul Anderson <
> psanders at ilstu.edu>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
>
>
>
> Tom:
>
> Are you commenting on my OFFLIST comment ONLIST without putting up my
> entire comment?
>
> If not, what specifically are you upset about? The "abstracts, or bullets"
> you accuse me of disparaging are not from this paper (Shen, et al. 2017)
> you mis-posted the link to.
>
> I have read many such papers in the past, and in this Abstract (Shen et
> al., 2017), the authors readily admit "data on UFP number emissions from
> cookstoves, which are a major source of many pollutants, are limited",
> which led to my comments about WHO and the Malawi study. I made no
> conclusion except implicitly endorse the authors' vies that cookstove
> emission data are limited.
>
>
>
> I challenge anybody to provide me with a list of emission factors and
> concentrations, exposures data for the cohort that died from 2008 to 2015
> and upon which IHME "burden of disease" numbers are made up.
>
> You have no basis claiming that "Let’s leap to conclusions based on an
> abstracts, or bullets, without reading the full article.". You did that,
> not me.
>
>
>
> The bullets I quoted are from the Bruce et al, (2015) piece I had read a
> long time back, and the second one - Burnett, et al. (2014) I had reviewed
> and critiqued on this list back last September.
>
> I request you to read twice and think twice before alleging falsehoods
> about me. Complaining that what I write is "rant", when you don't spend the
> time to read, makes me feel you really don't care to examine the data and
> methods behind what passes as the "evidence base" for the benefits of
> "clean cooking" (in Bruce, et al. and GACC words, LPG and electricity, if
> you read the link to Bruce paper and also read the "implementation science"
> paper in January this year with Sumi Mehta of GACC and Kirk Smith.)
>
> For the record, I have given up any hopes of discovering any facts or
> insights from what passes as "scientific" papers these days, at least not
> by paying for them. My primary interests are economics, politics, integrity
> of public expenditures, and culture, as they affect policymaking for
> household energy. Along the way, I have picked up a lot on agriculture,
> power systems,nutrition, health, environment, what not.
>
> Anybody who has any problem with my opinions is welcome to challenge my
> statements, not impugn my motives or dismiss what may pass as my knowledge.
> Assume my ignorance at your own risk; only I know my ignorance.
>
> Nikhil
>
> PS: I have read Jetter's research on-and-off from 2009 on. He was kind
> enough to provide me with a copy of his presentation in 2012 which I used,
> with his permission and proper citation, in a report on climate change
> resilience (see attached slide). I would most certainly like to see him
>
> PPS: "the leading expert on cookstoves and health"? As recognized by
> publications in Lancet? Go please read Kirk Smith in the original before
> pandering to second-rate or worse co-authors of his. There is not much to
> say about "cookstoves and health", only about "fuels, combustion, and
> observed disease incidence". Everything else is glib marketing to the
> gullible. Prove me wrong, please!
>
> PPPS: Feel free to comment on my OFFLIST response to Paul which you and
> others were cc'd on. But please also provide the text of what I wrote and
> then point out just what you have a problem with and why. I do take
> everybody's work seriously - which is why I point out the errors and
> limitations, instead of just going along with groupthink clapping.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
>
> (India +91) 909 995 2080 <+91%2090999%2052080>
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
>
> Nikhil,
>
>
>
> Let’s leap to conclusions based on an abstracts, or bullets, without
> reading the full article. That way it is easy to ascribe intents, purposes,
> and outcomes that were not intended by the authors. If you just read
> abstracts, how credible are your conclusions about anything? I guess if you
> are the leading expert on cookstoves and health then you can just read the
> headlines and forget about the content. Or, you could take the work
> seriously and discuss the work directly with the authors, some of whom are
> subscribed to this discussion list. Call Jim Jetter at EPA or pay him a
> visit. He’d be happy to discuss these research with you.
>
>
>
> Many of the research papers that I forward to the list are published by
> the American Chemical Society. It is cheaper to become an ACS member and
> subscribe to the journals than to pay $40 for each paper.
>
>
>
> Crispin has distinguished between inherent (fuel) and combustion
> emissions. The latter should be further divided into emissions that are due
> to the stove design and those due to how the stove is operated. The Shen
> paper should be read with that in mind to see if the way the device has
> been operated has an impact on the emissions.  Differences in emissions at
> high power, low power, startup, steady state, are discussed. Morphology of
> the particles and organic vs inorganic composition is discussed. Occurrence
> of soot is identified. The study points out the lack of data for
> particulate emissions from cookstoves compared with other combustion
> sources. You can check the documentation cited in the study.
>
>
>
> The paper can be found at:
>
> A Laboratory Comparison of Emission Factors, Number Size Distributions,
> and Morphology of Ultrafine Particles from 11 Different Household
> Cookstove-Fuel Systems Guofeng Shen, Chethan K. Gaddam, Seth M.
> Ebersviller, Randy L. Vander Wal, Craig Williams, Jerroll W. Faircloth,
> James J. Jetter and Michael D. Hays Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
>
> DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05928
>
> Publication Date (Web): May 24, 2017
>
> Copyright © 2017, American Chemical Society
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b05928
>
>
>
> The stoves and fuels tested are described in the free Supplemental
> Information at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.6b05928
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Anderson [mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:23 AM
> *To:* ndesai at alum.mit.edu; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Cc:* Darpan Das <darpandasiitb at gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>;
> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>; Cecil Cook <
> cec1863 at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
>
>
>
> All,
>
> Thank you to Nikhil for providing the correct link.
>
> Unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall.   $40 to too much for
> me to pay just to know what are the
>
> 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.   Can
> anyone with access to the article please send to us the info on what stoves
> were included?
>
> Paul
>
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
>
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <(309)%20452-7072>
>
> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>
> On 5/31/2017 8:31 AM, Nikhil Desai wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
> Yes, there is a mismatch between the abstract and the article. Correction
> below.
>
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b05928
>
>
> A Laboratory Comparison of Emission Factors, Number Size Distributions,
> and Morphology of Ultrafine Particles from 11 Different Household
> Cookstove-Fuel Systems
>
> *Guofeng Shen <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Shen%2C+Guofeng>**†**, Chethan
> K. Gaddam <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Gaddam%2C+Chethan+K>**§**, Seth M.
> Ebersviller <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Ebersviller%2C+Seth+M>**‡**, Randy
> L. Vander Wal <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Vander+Wal%2C+Randy+L>**§**, Craig
> Williams <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Williams%2C+Craig>**∥**, Jerroll W.
> Faircloth <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Faircloth%2C+Jerroll+W>**⊥**, James
> J. Jetter <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Jetter%2C+James+J>*
> <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b05928#cor1>**#**
> <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9621-4139>**, and Michael D. Hays
> <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Hays%2C+Michael+D>**#*
>
> † Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), U.S.
> Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 109
> T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, United
> States
>
> ‡ University of Findlay, 1000 North Main Street, Findlay, Ohio 45840, United
> States
>
> § John and Willie Leone Family Department of Energy and Mineral
> Engineering and the EMS Energy Institute, Penn State University,
> University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, United States
>
> ∥ CSS-Dynamac Inc., 1910 Sedwick Road, Durham, North Carolina 27713, United
> States
>
> ⊥ Jacobs Technology Inc., 600 William Northern Boulevard, Tullahoma,
> Tennessee 37388, United States
>
> # Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
> 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, United
> States
>
> Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
>
> *DOI: *10.1021/acs.est.6b05928
>
> Publication Date (Web): May 9, 2017
>
> *Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society*
>
> *Tel.: 919-541-4830 <(919)%20541-4830>; fax: 919-541-2157
> <(919)%20541-2157>; e-mail: Jetter.jim at epa.gov.
> Abstract
>
> [image: Abstract Image]
>
> Ultrafine particle (UFP) emissions and particle number size distributions
> (PNSD) are critical in the evaluation of air pollution impacts; however,
> data on UFP number emissions from cookstoves, which are a major source of
> many pollutants, are limited. In this study, 11 fuel-stove combinations
> covering a variety of fuels and different stoves are investigated for UFP
> emissions and PNSD. The combustion of LPG and alcohol (∼1011 particles
> per useful energy delivered, particles/MJd), and kerosene (∼1013
>  particles/MJd), produced emissions that were lower by 2–3 orders of
> magnitude than solid fuels (1014–1015 particles/MJd). Three different
> PNSD types—unimodal distributions with peaks ∼30–40 nm, unimodal
> distributions with peaks <30 nm, and bimodal distributions—were observed as
> the result of both fuel and stove effects. The fractions of particles
> smaller than 30 nm (*F*30) varied among the tested systems, ranging from
> 13% to 88%. The burning of LPG and alcohol had the lowest PM2.5 mass
> emissions, UFP number emissions, and *F*30 (13–21% for LPG and 35–41% for
> alcohol). Emissions of PM2.5 and UFP from kerosene were also low compared
> with solid fuel burning but had a relatively high *F*30 value of
> approximately 73–80%.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
>
> (India +91) 909 995 2080 <+91%2090999%2052080>
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170601/4d54920c/attachment.html>