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

[Nikhil Desai]

Paul:

Some reactions in *** below.

Nikhil



On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Paul Anderson <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?
>

*** I pointed out that compared to how Kirk Smith was quoted in the 2015
Washington Post opinion piece by Marc Gunther, he added both "as a health
measure" and "if gas is available." I for one don't assign any particular
meaning to "health measure". A stove is not a pill, leave alone without any
FDA approval. And "availability" of gas is a contextual issue - available
where? At the port two miles away in a tanker or in a pipe to the home or a
cylinder a mile or ten miles away? Of course biomass stoves are not "as
reliably clean", but Prof. Smith uses that to simply curse biomass stoves.
He is a fan of modern solutions, and so am I. But his dismissal of biomass
stoves guarantees a fuel apartheid. ***

>
> 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.
>

*** Depends on market size and finance for the infrastructure. And even
then the markets may be elsewhere. For instance, Nigerian off-shore gas
flaring is still going on and LNG is all exported - see The Quiet Gas
Revolution in Nigeria
<http://leadership.ng/2017/10/04/quiet-gas-revolution-nigeria/>. (Some West
African gas is wet; there was a large study on West African LPG potential
by WLPGA and the World Bank about 15 years ago. Flaring will continue as
new associated gas fields are developed and some new refineries produce LPG
that cannot be stored and transported. ***

>
> 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.
>

*** India has CNG - Compressed Natural Gas - as well as LPG for urban
passenger vehicles and buses. Competition among fuels is manipulated by
taxes and price fixing. Companies only care for aggregate bottom line, not
which fuels necessarily.***

>
> 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.
>

*** How is this different from electricity? ***

>
> 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.
>

*** Among the working poor, time is of the essence. Small 5 kg LPG
cylinders will likely fill a niche market, even as they continue using wood
for other cooking. The so-called health argument is for the pundit class.
Of course gas is clean, electricity is clean. People with small budgets
can't have all the health from a stove, as going to a doctor and hospital
is getting costlier. Do not forget that for Prof. Smith's GBD computations,
solid fuels including biomass are "dirty" by definition. Period. No
variation by fuel quality or quantity, stove type, location. Everybody is
given the same PM 2.5 concentration and a mark of DALY. There is no way
Prof Smith can be consistent arguing that solid fuels are dirty by
definition AND admit that they can be burnt clean enough. Just look up WHO
"database" of exposures. ***

>
>  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."
>

*** Connotation is in the eyes of the connotator. Food subsidy is a social
investment. Irrigation subsidies are a social investment. Zero-carbon
nuclear power plants are social investment. Prof Smith is just drooling in
his praises for LPG. (I happen to agree with him too, just that I disagree
with him about DALYs, aDALYs, and solid fuels being "dirty". ***

>
> 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.
>

*** YES, but it will be an uphill battle. This Clean Cooking Forum has one
question before it -- does GACC have a future, or is it its swan song for
the last three years ahead? ***

>
> May progress be made.
>

*** Hoping against hope, but in service of the poor and the neglected. They
may well be dying not of PM2.5 but the depression caused by the drudgery of
cooking. Give them a stove/fuel they love to use. Pleasing the cook is the
ultimate benefit. ***

>
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171004/011b3d5f/attachment.html>