[Stoves] ESPs for stove solidfuel PM2.5?

Sun Nov 25 09:08:03 CST 2018

Not that I know of - but then we've been pretty busy recently and havn't
been to any recent meetings etc.

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:44 PM Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> Terry,
>
>
>
> The plan was released in 2013.   Is there any info on actions, roadblocks,
> successes, goals met, etc?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
>
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu       Skype:   paultlud
>
> Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434
>
> Website:   www.drtlud.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Stoves <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org> *On Behalf Of *Cookswell
> Jikos
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 24, 2018 11:59 PM
> *To:* Nikhil Desai <ndesai at alum.mit.edu>
> *Cc:* Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>; Discussion of
> biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] ESPs for stove solidfuel PM2.5?
>
>
>
> Anyone for some light Sunday reading? Here is the Kenya Country Action
> Plan from the Clean Cookstoves Alliance Kenya -
> http://cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/kenya-country-action-plan.pdf
>
>
>
> If anyone feels like sending your thoughts or feedback I'd be happy to
> pass them along at the next meeting we go to or you can email them directly
> as well on
> info[at]ccak.or.ke
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Teddy
>
>
>
>
> Teddy Kinyanjui
>
> Sustainability Director
>
>
>
> [image:
> https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3YUMG1TTODQ/Wh6o8gWfRmI/AAAAAAAAAyw/1bp5qqpvmwQwg5JXqL7hz-OLGSx5nSEXgCK8BGAs/s512/TK%2BEmail%2BLogo.jpg]
>
>             [image: https://images2.imgbox.com/97/28/BgG0H6ZN_o.png]
> <https://www.facebook.com/CookswellJikos>  [image:
> https://images2.imgbox.com/54/7e/owicmXIG_o.png]
> <https://www.instagram.com/cookswelljikos>  [image:
> https://images2.imgbox.com/64/b1/oh4tfzkH_o.png]
> <https://twitter.com/cookswelljikos?lang=en>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Andrew:
>
> You say "targets are needed". What targets and who needs them where? Why
> should I concede that what WHO - and the cabal of "implementation
> scientists" - WANT for everybody everywhere is indeed what is needed by
> poor peoples and their governments?
>
> The WHO 25µg/m3 guideline
> <http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/69477/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_eng.pdf>
> for PM2.5 is for 24-hour mean, with 10µg/m3 as the annual mean. For our
> purposes, let me only note that
>
>
>
> (a) this value need not be in every spot for everybody; the definition of
> location, measurement protocol, and averaging methods matter;
>
>
>
> (b) there is zilch evidence that the annual mean is reported in even 1,000
> representative households or a representative neighborhood, city, district,
> leave alone separately from cooking fuels and other sources (Kirk Smith has
> no skeletons in his closet);
>
>
>
> (c) the assumptions of equitoxicity, "no safe threshold", and uniform
> cohorts across the world and over time, are simply untenable; (as also the
> assumptions and derived form of the Integrated Exposure Response, which
> came roughly a decade after the guideline); and,
>
>
>
> (d) PM2.5 is an indicator of pollution because of its co-emission with
> other pollutants such as NOx. (How much NOx from cookstoves, Crispin?)
>
>
> There is no basis to drag WHO into cooking and heating stove business.
> There is no there there. We are here to serve people, not pundits.
>
> WHO "guidelines" are of zero value for air quality management (AQM). It
> has "interim targets" for annual average and daily maxima, but again of no
> consequence. It has SDG targets for energy and health which are in complete
> contravention of our work on cleaner combustion of solid fuels because it
> has bought into Berkeley/EPA/CCA lie that solid fuels are by definition
> unhealthy.
>
> Now that GACC is dead, the time has come to kill the ISO TC-285 circus and
> rubbish the WHO/Berkeley gangsterism. (I hate to personalize the
> distasteful propaganda in Kirk Smith, who I agree with in many respects,
> just that he has to be held responsible for his intellectual air pollution.)
>
> Let's see if people on this list can take control of the cookstoves
> debate, even if they cannot produce usable, marketable cookstoves that are
> contextually designed and promoted.
>
> Who should give a hoo(t) about WHO?
>
> Let's not be distracted by the red herrings. WHO air quality guidelines
> (AQG) for PM2.5 and PM10 are purely adventurism of self-professed pundits.
> WHO has neither the jurisdiction nor the competence in air quality
> management (AQM) and of course no money to finance AQM development. It has
> become the bag carrier for UN Foundation, Gates Foundation, and USEPA
> (which has probably ended this last September, at least as far as
> cookstoves and ISO TC-285 chatterbox are concerned)
>
> We here should forget about WHO or, if we have the druthers, improve our
> work and challenge the WHO directorate of social and environmental health
> if we can't ignore them. The elements of challenge, apart from the case I
> laid out above - there is no there there, just vacuous, incompetent babble
> outside WHO's mandate - are simple:
>
> 1. The  are not "standards". (AQS) Even leaving aside the issue of
> compliance and enforcement, standard-setting is an art with interplaying
> colors of science, law, economics, and capacity, all contextually
> determined. To pretend otherwise means a contempt of half a century of
> regulatory battles in the rich, and better-informed, world.
>
> 2. WHO has borrowed these AQS from USEPA and such other entities, who in
> turn use the AQS, with air transport modeling studies, to develop fuel bans
> or source emission standards, depending on location and associated
> demographics, meteorology, and technology status. Again, this has the same
> colors with different contextual pictures. But unlike them, WHO has no
> authority - nor the competence - to define fuel bans or emission standards.
> What it did in its 2014 report Household Fuel Combustion Guidelines - Solid
> Fuels (HFCG) is a ridiculous overreach, on the strength of ludicrous
> "literature reviews" on invalid or incomparable cohorts, that consultants
> like Kirk Smith and Sumi Mehta churned out. The literature reviews and the
> GBD "relative risk" computations, combined with contemptible "room
> modeling" by BAMG got you the TC 285 emission targets, on the one hand, and
> gave license to Kirk Smith to pronounce "not truly health protective" and
> "no stacking".
>
> All this has been a waste of tie. The only proper means of moving the
> technology frontier is to develop low-emission rate stoves that make a
> significant measurable contribution to improving the quality of air
> breathed by specific populations.
>
> Yes, I am in favor of fuel bans if such technologies are not available.
> But not only are cleaner combustion technologies available, there are means
> of venting, filtering, extracting that can be adapted to different
> structures and neighborhoods.
>
> Fuel bans or subsidies I am reasonably equipped to evaluate. I have even
> had some effective contribution there. What we next need is to challenge
> WHO and CCA to come up with (i) the evidence of daily and annual exposures
> to solid fuel cookstove pollutants and corresponding disease incidence,
> (ii) establish causality and hence avoidability, and (iii) air quality
> modeling for daily, monthly, seasonal variations according to geographies,
> fuels, cohorts, that can inform air quality management plans. (If they
> continue to kill people by GBD assumptions, I demand lifelong exposure data
> for roughly 3 billion people from 1986 to 2026.)
>
> Time to turn the heat on. So those who can't cook get out of the kitchen
> and stop feasting at the meager foods of the unfortunate.
>
> Any takers?
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
>
> (US +1) 202 568 5831
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 6:07 AM Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 03:46, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > I was looking at the Kyrgyz Republic indoor air quality measurements
> from Fresh Air, Netherlands. It is rare to find a home that is below 25
> µg/m3 even after installing a good stove.
>
> ...but is 25µg/m3 the target we should be aiming for, I realise this is
> the level the World Health Organisation say but how practicable is it given
> your next paragraph?
> >
> > Boots on the floor, smoking and cooking provide almost 100% of the IAP
> once the stove is taken care of.
>
> This is very much what I see at home, around 5µg/m3 quiescent state but
> when I walk into the room I notice a temporary rise to over 10µg/m3, some
> of this may possibly be from particulates released into the local
> atmosphere by *my* chimney as I heat with wood, as well as background
> particulates and dust from my working.
> >
> > As for the use of electrostatic precipitators and catalytic converters,
> they have both been promoted recently in Ulaanbaatar at a cost equal to or
> above the cost of providing a highly advanced new stove. In other words
> they are willing to spend more money to clean up emissions instead of
> preventing them in the first place.
>
> Yes I cannot see this being a sensible use of the money, nor
> fitting filters like a diesel car has to have now in UK (they have a
> back pressure which could not be overcome with natural draught).
> >
> > Run properly the PM output is about 0.006 g/kg burned. Run badly it is
> about 4 or 5 times that: 0.030 g/kg. It is not worth spending hundreds of $
> per installation to reduce that further.
>
> This will be coal burning then?
> >
> > I see one of the stoves at the competition in DC reached 0.42 with
> wood.  That’s pretty good.
>
> So is it a sensible target, 0.42g/kg of fuel burned? If we assume 150%
> excess air (or more as long as it's known) we can relate that to a
> particulate concentration in µg/m3 of the stack emissions.
>
> ...and yes Nikhil I realise I am being deterministic where you consider it
> is meaningless but I still feel targets are needed.
>
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181125/66f10640/attachment.html>