<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div><br></div>This is in continuation to the mails on the subject of " future of biomass stoves.<div><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Larger population adopts biomass as fuel for cooking is not
only because they are locally available but also they are the cheaper
option. Clean combustion cooking
solution is important without a major change on fuel source and cost. Biomass
driven fuels like producer gas or pyrolysis oil can be considered to have clean
combustion cookstoves, which can meet the standards of lowered limit.<br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">To use the producer gas, there is a need for technology
development, which includes hydrogen enrichment (through steam gasification)
and removal of CO (through PSA). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">To use the pyrolysis oil, there is a needed on development
of small scale pyrolyser and suitable cookstoves for clean burning of the
pyrolysis oil.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">In addition to the process of lowering the limits, it is equally important to make sure that alternative solutions are in place. Issues related to the affordability and supply chain management also need to be taken in account when there is a major shift in choice of cookstoves.</p><div><br></div><p class="MsoNormal">It may not be appropriate to drop the option of
developing clean combustion cookstove (which burns solid fuel), just because it
was not developed so far, to meet the standards. Research and development of clean
combustion cookstove designs, to meet the desired performance level, should be prioritized.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">With best regards</p><p class="MsoNormal">P Raman, Ph.D</p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature">With Best Regards,<br><div>P Raman</div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Paul Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Stovers,<br>
<br>
The message below from Dr. Kirk Smith's mailing list has not been
distributed to the Stoves Listserv. It is too important to
overlook, and merits our discussions.<br>
<br>
He wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">newer
evidence since 2005 on the health effects of combustion air
pollution, as
for example found in the latest Global Burden of Disease
estimates, would
indicate that when the next revision of the AQGs is done (as now
planned), the limits will become even lower. The stove community
thus should probably therefore consider <b><u>what this document
recommends as
likely to tighten further [emissons standards] over time.</u></b>
(emphasis added)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In an earlier (Nov 6) message to the Stoves Listserv, this <u>comment
by a reviewer</u> stated about Dr. Smith's work:
<blockquote type="cite">IT MARKS A MAJOR
SHIFT IN THINKING FROM IMPROVING COOK STOVES TO RECOGNIZING THAT
TO GAIN
THE POSITIVE HEALTH IMPACT STOVES HAVE TO BE CLEAN (GAS-LIKE), AND
THAT
PROBABLY THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS ON A MASS SCALE IS THROUGH
LP GAS
AND ELECTRICITY.</blockquote>
<br>
Holy Smokes!! Nobody even made a comment about this!! (I was on a
trip and am only replying now.) That is an endorsement of LP Gas
and electricity as "probably the only way" to get the emissions down
low enough. And nobody said anything??<br>
<br>
If we do not discuss this, does that mean that we accept it? What
about these issues:<br>
<br>
1. Probably biogas (from wet biomass) is sufficiently clean?<br>
<br>
2. Can the TLUD and other gasifiers stoves make the cut-off because
they are gas-burning stoves that make their own gases, that is, they
are "gas-like" in operations? And funding to determine if this can
happen?<br>
<br>
3. Other technologies related to solid fuels for cooking,
(including coal as mentioned by Crispin in other messages)?<br>
<br>
4. AND what about the socio-economic impracticality to expect that
impoverished people who depend on wood and other solid fuels will be
able to sustainably obtain LPG and electricity within multiple
generations? Move them up to the top of the energy ladder right
away, or simply neglect them for additional decades while the
affluent world decides what assistance is given to whom? <br>
<br>
5. And a big issue: Are we making the many efforts for better
cookstoves ONLY because of health? What about deforestation and
fuel efficiency? and CO2 increases? and safety from burns?
and development of other biomass fuels / semi-processed biomass from
"refuse" and low-value stems, etc.?<br>
<br>
6. Should the GACC and other organizations pull out of their
support for solid-fuel-stoves? <br>
<br>
I am certain that Kirk Smith and the GACC and others have the best
interests of all in mind. But in light of the recent scientific
and health findings, what should be the future of biomass stoves?<br>
<br>
I will contribute to this discussion as appropriate, but I am not
going to get into any individualized debates. So please direct
your comments to EVERYONE. Feel free to adjust the Subject line to
reflect your "flavor" of reply, because there are SOOOOO many
different aspects to the topics at hand, and we should soon have a
few different threads of messages.<br>
<br>
And remember that this week, Thurs 20 Nov, is the big GACC meeting
in New York City. I have been assured by the organizers that it
will have live broadcast via Internet, so we can all listen to the
high powered presentations that day. Will any speaker comment on
this latest interpretation of what constitutes "sufficiently clean"
regarding cookstoves? And at the Friday private meeting for the
pledging of funding for further clean-cookstove efforts, will the
funds flow for LPG and electricity?<br>
<br>
What is the future of biomass stoves?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<div><br>
<pre cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>[stove and LF Annals] Historical watershed</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:59:05 -0800</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Kirk R. Smith <a href="mailto:krksmith@berkeley.edu" target="_blank"><krksmith@berkeley.edu></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Reply-To:
</th>
<td><a href="mailto:krksmith@berkeley.edu" target="_blank">krksmith@berkeley.edu</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Kirk R. Smith <a href="mailto:Krksmith@berkeley.edu" target="_blank"><Krksmith@berkeley.edu></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
Beginning this week, for the first time in human history, it will
no
longer be possible to claim a stove is truly "improved" or
"clean" without reference to authoritative global set of
health-based guidelines..<br>
<br>
<font size="4"><b>WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY: HOUSEHOLD
FUEL
COMBUSTION, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2014<br>
<br>
</b></font>This is the third, and last currently planned, volume
from WHO
on IAQ, the first two being on selected individual pollutants
<a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/9789289002134/en/" target="_blank">
http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/9789289002134/en/</a>
and
dampness and mold
<a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/7989289041683/en/" target="_blank">
http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/7989289041683/en/</a>.
This
last one is at
<a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/en/" target="_blank">
http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/en/</a> and also on
my
website below. It is the result of 3+ years of work by an
international expert committee and many peer reviewers including a
year-long internal WHO process of quality checking and reframing
to be
consistent with other WHO guideline documents,<br>
<br>
This third volume is a bit different in its recommendations than
most
other WHO guidelines in that it does not develop new
exposure/concentration guidelines for the critical pollutants
themselves,
but takes these for CO from the previous IAQ document on Selected
Pollutants and for PM2.5 from the 2005 WHO Air Quality Guidelines
(AQGs)
---
<a href="http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/outdoorair_aqg/en/" target="_blank">
http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/outdoorair_aqg/en/</a>
In addition to extensive reviews of the literature, this new
document presents recommended guidelines for indoor<b> emissions
</b>limits that will keep a large fraction of households below the
AQGs
themselves for CO and PM2.5. As there are wide ranges of
household
sizes, ventilation rates, and cooking patterns, it specifies
limits in a
probabilistic manner using a Monte Carlo model, e.g., to keep 90%
of
household below the AQG, the emissions needs to be below X, for
50% they
need to be below y. <br>
<br>
Notably, this document formalizes what was only stated
conceptually in
the 2005 AQGs, which is that the guidelines should apply in every
non-occupational micro-environment where people spend significant
time --
indoor or outdoor.<br>
<br>
The document also addresses chimney stoves as well as having
sections on
coal and kerosene as household fuels -- discouraging both because
of
apparent extra toxicities.<br>
<br>
The quantitative recommendations will be a challenge to the
biomass stove
community in that, in keeping with the health evidence, truly low
emission rates of unvented stoves will be needed to protect health
adequately. We firmly hope that the ongoing process of creating
stove standards under the ISO process will adopt these
recommendations,
as was agreed previously.. I might add in this context, that
newer
evidence since 2005 on the health effects of combustion air
pollution, as
for example found in the latest Global Burden of Disease
estimates, would
indicate that when the next revision of the AQGs is done (as now
planned), the limits will become even lower. The stove community
thus should probably therefore consider what this document
recommends as
likely to tighten further over time.<br>
<br>
Congratulations to the whole expert group and particularly Nigel
Bruce,
Heather Adair-Rohani, and Carlos Dora at WHO-Geneva for moving it
through
from start to finish.. Best/k <br>
<br>
Below is from the Executive Summary, the full version being in the
report
and available separately on the WHO website
<a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc" target="_blank">
www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc</a><br>
<br>
<font size="5"><b>Overview<br>
<br>
</b></font>Almost 3 billion of the world’s poorest people still
rely on
solid fuels (wood,<br>
animal dung, charcoal, crop wastes and coal) burned in inefficient
and
highly<br>
polluting stoves for cooking and heating, currently resulting in
some 4
million<br>
premature deaths annually among children and adults from
respiratory and
cardiovascular<br>
diseases, and cancer. Together with widespread use of kerosene
stoves<br>
and lamps, these household energy practices also cause many deaths
and
serious<br>
injuries from scalds, burns and poisoning. The use of solid fuel
for
heating<br>
in more developed countries is also common and contributes
significantly
to air<br>
pollution exposure. Air pollution from household fuel combustion
is the
most<br>
important global environmental health risk today.<br>
<br>
These new guidelines bring together the most recent evidence on
fuel
use,<br>
emission and human exposure levels, health risks, intervention
impacts
and policy<br>
considerations, to provide practical recommendations to reduce
this
health<br>
burden, which build on existing WHO air quality guidelines for
specific
pollutants<br>
(AQG). Implementation of these recommendations will also help
secure<br>
the additional benefits to society, development and the
environment
including<br>
climate that will result from wider access to clean, safe and
efficient household<br>
energy.<br>
<br>
Drawing on a broad range of newly commissioned, or recently
published,<br>
systematic reviews of the scientific literature, the guidelines
apply
strict criteria<br>
for assessing the quality of available evidence and the
suitability for
developing<br>
recommendations. Among the key findings is that for several
important
health<br>
outcomes, including child acute respiratory infections, exposure
to the
key<br>
pollutant fine particulate matter, or PM<font size="1">2.5
</font>needs to be brought down to low<br>
levels in order to gain most of the health benefit. The other main
finding is that<br>
most of the solid fuel interventions promoted in recent years have
not
even come<br>
close to these levels when in everyday use, and there is a need
for much
more<br>
emphasis on accelerating access to clean household fuels.<br>
<br>
The recommendations focus particular attention on reducing
emissions
of<br>
pollutants as much as possible, while also recognizing the
importance of
adequate<br>
ventilation and information and support for households to ensure
best use
of<br>
technologies and fuels. They encompass general considerations for
policy,
a set<br>
of four specific recommendations, and a good practice
recommendation
for<br>
addressing both health and climate impacts. The general
considerations
address<br>
issues such as the need for community-wide action, as pollution
from one
house<br>
or other source affects neighbours, and vice-versa, and the fact
that
safety of new<br>
fuels and technologies cannot be assumed and must be assessed. <br>
<br>
The specific recommendations address the following:<br>
<br>
• Emission rate targets which specify the levels of emissions from
household<br>
energy fuels and technologies that pose minimal health risks, and
which
are<br>
designed to guide assessment of how well various interventions can
meet
the<br>
air quality concentrations specified in WHO guidelines;<br>
• Policies for the period of transition from current practices to
community-wide<br>
use of clean fuels and household energy technologies, recognizing
that
intermediate<br>
steps will be needed for some time to come among lower income and<br>
more rural homes reliant on solid fuels;<br>
• The need to avoid the use of unprocessed coal as a household
fuel, in
light of<br>
the specific health risks;<br>
• The need to avoid the use of kerosene as a household fuel, in
light of
concerns<br>
about emissions and safety.<br>
<br>
The good practice recommendation encourages policy makers to
recognize<br>
that many of the pollutants from household fuel combustion lead to
both
health<br>
risks and climate change.<br>
<br>
The guidelines are targeted at public health policy-makers and
specialists<br>
working with the energy, environment and other sectors to develop
and
implement<br>
policy to reduce the adverse health impacts of household fuel
combustion.<br>
This publication is linked to ongoing work by WHO and its partners
to
provide<br>
technical support for implementation of the recommendations, as
well
as<br>
monitoring progress and evaluating programme impacts, for example,
through<br>
the WHO database on household fuel combustion. Further details of
the
guidance,<br>
tools and other resources are available on the guidelines web
pages:
<a href="http:///" target="_blank"><b>http://<br>
</b></a><b>
<a href="http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc" target="_blank">
www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc</a></b>.<br>
<br>
<font size="5"><b>Rationale for these guidelines<br>
</b></font>Household air pollution (HAP) released by inefficient
combustion of solid fuels<br>
for cooking and heating is currently responsible for the world’s
largest
single<br>
environmentally-related disease burden. It has been calculated
that
household<br>
air pollution released during cooking causes around 4 million
premature
deaths<br>
<i>(1, 2)</i>. WHO estimates that household air pollution caused
4.3
million deaths in<br>
2012 <i>(3). </i>A further 0.4 million deaths are linked to the
contribution HAP makes<br>
to ambient (outdoor) air pollution <i>(2). </i>Added to this,
but as yet
not quantified due<br>
to lack of sufficient research and weaker evidence, are deaths and
disease from<br>
HAP derived from heating and lighting.<br>
<br>
Use of inefficient fuels for household heating, cooking and
lighting also
puts<br>
household members, particularly children, at high risk of being
burned
(e.g. as<br>
a result of falling into fires, spilled fuel, etc.) and poisoning
(caused
by ingesting<br>
kerosene). While HAP from household fuel combustion is less
serious in
more<br>
developed countries, it remains an issue in settings where solid
fuel
(mainly wood<br>
and other biomass) and kerosene are used for heating.<br>
T<br>
o date, there have been no health-based guidelines with
recommendations<br>
for policy to address this issue. Growing recognition that access
to
modern<br>
household energy is critical for the achievement of health,
development
and environmental<br>
(including climate) goals, has led to several ambitious United
Nations<br>
(UN) and government-led initiatives to secure universal access to
modern
household<br>
energy over the next 15–20 years.<br>
<br>
Against this background, it is important to have guidelines
available to
ensure<br>
that the potentially large health benefits of investment in, and
policy
for, household<br>
energy are realized.<br>
<br>
<u></u>
<p>
<font face="Calibri">Kirk R. Smith, MPH, PhD<br>
Professor of Global Environmental Health, University of
California,
Berkeley<br>
(Fulbright-Nehru Distinguished Chair (2013/14), Indian
Institute of
Technology-Delhi)<br>
Delhi cell: (91) 97-1641-6091 [note new number]<br>
<a href="http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/" target="_blank">
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/<br>
<br>
<br>
</a></font>
</p>
<u></u><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>