<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"helvetica neue";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>Dear Friends of Big Reports<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>There is a document you can get at <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"helvetica neue",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><a href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf?sequence=1">https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf?sequence=1</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"helvetica neue",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>which is from ESMAP<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It makes for very interesting reading, from great observations to howlers. It appears to have been written mostly by policy makers but makes many technical claims as well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Some points are really worth debating here:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>“LPG is a clean, non-toxic fuel that emits little particulate matter and burns efficiently. Compared <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>to kerosene, it delivers double the heat for the same quantity used.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>Which quantity would that be? Certainly not per $. Mass? LPG has about the same energy content per kg as kerosene so this claim surprised me. A good kerosene stove is going to be above 45-50% efficient, fuel heat to pot heat. LPG is about 65% efficient on a good day. I would say that is 30-45% better.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Maybe they meant LPG with a modern good condition burner compared with an old wick stove. In that case if could be more than double. If we compare really good kerosene stoves with LPG there is no difference. Peak efficiency at, say, 1.25 kW is comparable though I have seen a cheap wick stove from China that outperformed a new LPG stove at that power level (71% v.s. 65%).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Why is anyone so certain kerosene is such a bad fuel? Is it perhaps bad stoves that cause the problem? The long term answer is low pressure stoves because they avoid all sorts of pressure-related problems and does away with wicks at the same time (they lose effectiveness over time). We need some new inventions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>One of the objections raise against kerosene compared with LPG in South Africa was from the fuels industry. With LPG they control the distribution right to the last mile. With kerosene, all sorts of people are involved in micro trading fuel in plastic bags (!) and bottles.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Unlicensed people! Ordinary folks! <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Anyway, have fun reading. There are contributions from all the usual suspects. There are lots of great charts you can cite.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Crispin<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>PS I see they once again have omitted the stellar performance of the super-clean TLUD coal stoves rolled out in Ulaanbaatar, the most expensive and most successful externally funded stove project ever. It is also the first time a city’s air pollution has been substantially improved (-63%) without changing the fuel. Eat <i>that</i>, London…<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>