[Stoves] About LPG and India. Re: [stove] Ujjwala explained

Tue Oct 3 06:34:04 CDT 2017

A consideration for assessing the impact of biomass. This should show up in surveys and program monitoring. How did Shell Foundation deal with this a few years ago?  Was there a published impact evaluation of the Shell Foundation program in India?

Tom

“since the petroleum companies in India are owned by the Government of India, the government is just not interested in promoting stoves using biomass.” A.D.Karve

***
Dr. A.D. Karve

Chairman, Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd (www.samuchit.com <http://www.samuchit.com> )

Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> > wrote:

Stovers,  

Kirk Smith has shared his latest book-chapter.   Links to it are below.

I make several comments, mostly with my focus on "solid biomass fuel stoves":

1.  The content about LPG fuel and stoves in India is quite worthwhile.  The chapter is based on 8 solid peer-reviewed writings that are listed in the Endnotes (all written by Smith, often with co-authors.)   For that reason, much of what is in the book chapter is very similar to prevous writings.  So this chapter brings numerous segments together nicely.  

2.  One paragraph (middle of the fourth page of the .pdf document) is about biomass stoves:   It says:

"None of  this [about LPG] has, however, affected the budget of the renewable energy ministry, which still runs the national biomass and biogas stove programs.  These programmes should still be encouraged,but perhaps now be better focused on the very poorest and more remote populations that will not be reached by LPG in the next decade." ...  
[That is an important concession that Smith clearly makes in many of his writings.  And he goes on to say.]

..."These people would still benefit from more efficient stoves that at least lower pollution exposure to some extent."

[That is a nice concession, but it certainly is not very forceful.  To say "... to some extent" could be a justification for mediocre ICS stoves.   Perhaps to let the poor folks have Tier 2 and Tier 3 stoves?  
 And then he puts in the kicker, the comment to kill the truly clean burning biomass stoves:]

..."Unfortunately, however, no biomass stove on the market today is nearly as reliably clean  as gas fuels and, thus, cannot be proposed yet as a health measure if gas is available." 

I do note the qualifier words  "... if gas is available."   The rest of the chapter says that LPG or PNG (piped natural gas) is coming.   

But would Smith say that sentence without the final four words?   Will he acknowledge that there are very clean burning stoves that burn biomass?  

This is VERY recent writing, so it is interpreted as Kirk Smith's current positon about the Advanced Modern Clean  Cooking Solutions ("MACCS") that include the Woodgas / Micro-gasifier stoves.   

I do not want a fight.   I want Kirk Smith to openly and enthusiastically acknowledge the current existence and the increasing progress of VERY CLEAN burning biomass stoves.   I have recently written about the need for recognition of the clean  burning biomass stoves, with copies reaching Smith and Dean  Still and GACC leaders who will be speaking at the coming GACC Forum.   

Let's try to get this clarified beforehand so that we do not need to force discussion in the question and answer times at the Forum presentations.   Tht conversation is on-going at the Stoves Listserv.   Please share this message with everyone.

************  Now back to the discussion of Smith's chapter. *************

3.   On page 5 of the .pdf file are these words relating to the sources and abundance of LPG:  
".... will be used somewhere no matter what --- autos, petrochemicals, or being flared, are the other main uses besides households.  Why not ustilize as much as possible to the highest social value use --- cooking for the poor?"    

Responses:  
A.  Do not flare it.   That is pure waste.

B.  Use LPG for autos because biomass is nowhere close to being as good for vehicle fuel.   Unlimited demand for LPG as a vehicle fuel if the vehicles are equipped for LPG.  Distribution problems are reduced because the vehicles go the the distribution stations.      But why might this not appeal?   One reason is that LPG would then compete with gasoline and diesel fuels, and that would be competition WITHIN the interests of Big Oil.   So, therefore, it is more  business if they direct LPG to the poor people.

C.  LPG is NOT financially friendly to poor people.  Yes, GIVE them an LPG stove and full tank, and then expect them to forever make payments for refills.   Not a bad deal for the oil marketing companies (OMCs), of which there are three big ones in India, with the Government of India  (GoI) owning more than 50% of each.

D.  Sure the LPG and PNG are clean burning (the health arguement), but so are the MACCS that include biogas and alcohol and solar and electric and the "Woodgas from Biomass".   And of those, the Woodgas / gasifiers can actually use locally grown biomass of many types, precisely the same fuels that those poor families are currently using in their smoky stoves that are causing indoor and outdoor pollution.  Solid biomass is not a dirty fuel.  Fuels need to be in the correct stoves where they are cleanly combusted.

 4.  On page 7 of the .pdf document, Smith comments regarding getting the LPG into "...the poorest and remotest parts of the country... where the density of connections is lower than distributors have enjoyed up to now.  Use of women's self-help groups, rural cooperatives and other existing  ogranizaitons will be needed..."  THAT comment is equally valid (or even  more valid) regarding the introduction of the CLEAN BURNING biomass stoves.  And in those areas, the biomass fuels are local, and do not require trucks and then the manual carrying of metal LPG cylinders.  

5.  On page 8, there is discussion of the government expenditure of US$ 1.2 Billion for the PMUY programme for free LPG connections to 50 million households.  "Indeed, it would seem that the programme can soon claim to be a social investment, not a subsidy.  Both come from the taxpayer, but the former has a much different connotation when focused on the poor."

The same could be said if the stoves were the clean burning gasifier stoves.  No, stop, wait.   it is not the same.   The biomass gasifiers can claim carbon credits and can actually PAY BACK the investment,   So the government might only be a guarantor of loans that will be paid back to lenders such as the Asian Develpment Bank.  

Please note that carbon credits with gasifier stoves are ALREADY being earned in India (Deganga case study in West Bengal).   Without any money from the government (and therefore slower than it needs to be.).   Also, note that the gasifier stoves are in areas within reach of the LPG distribution activities and the free LPG equipment.   The people will decide what they want to use.

6.  Finally, I am NOT against the LPG / PMUY programme.   But I do want recognition and appropriate support (organizational and financial) for the expansion of the gasifier stove efforts in India.   Smith's chapter virtually ignores the viable alternative / co-solution offered by the gasifier cookstoves.   The issue is not about starting the gasifier efforts.   Efforts are already underway, with proven results.   The issue is to be supportive of the much more rapid expansion of those gasifier stove efforts.   

May progress be made.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> 
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com> 

On 9/27/2017 12:04 PM, Kirk Smith wrote:

Below is the first para of Kirk R. Smith, 2017, The Indian LPG Programmes: Globally Pioneering Initiatives, Chapter 5 in Bibek Debroy & Ashok Malik, eds, India at 70;  <mailto:Modi at 3.5> Modi at 3.5, 

Wisdom Tree, New Delhi, 211 pp.

The full chapter can be downloaded from the website at the bottom. 

(and here:   <http://www.kirkrsmith.org/> http://www.kirkrsmith.org/ 
or directly at:   http://www.kirkrsmith.org/publications/2017/9/27/the-indian-lpg-programmes-globally-pioneering-initiatives   )

Kirk R. Smith, MPH, PhD <krksmith at berkeley.edu <mailto:krksmith at berkeley.edu> >

Professor of Global Environmental Heath

School of Public Health, University of California Berkeley and

Collaborative Clean Air Policy Centre, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi 

Indian cell number: (91) 99-5873-8713; 

 <http://www.kirkrsmith.org/> http://www.kirkrsmith.org/

If you are interested in receiving the messages directly from Kirk smith, you can subscribe to the group as I have done.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups  <mailto:stove at lists.berkeley.edu> "stove at lists.berkeley.edu" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stove+unsubscribe at lists.berkeley.edu <mailto:stove+unsubscribe at lists.berkeley.edu> .

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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/20171003/74bad30f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 496669 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171003/74bad30f/attachment.png>