<div dir="ltr">Hi Paul,<div><br></div><div>I am no expert on emissions from coal that are not burned up in a stove. Here are some scary paragraphs from the WHO Indoor Air Guidelines booklet:</div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">A6.1 Assessment of the quality of the evidence </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Three areas
of evidence were assessed for quality: • carcinogenicity of emissions from
household use of coal • health risks from incomplete combustion of coal • toxic
contaminants</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">A6.1.1 Carcinogenicity </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Carcinogenicity of household use of coal
was reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, (1), using
standard assessment methodology involving review of exposure data, studies of
cancer in humans, studies of cancer in experimental animals, and mechanistic
and other relevant data. It was concluded that for household use of coal:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"> •
There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of household
combustion of coal. Household combustion of coal causes cancer of the lung. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">•
There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of
emissions from combustion of coal.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"> • There is sufficient evidence in
experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of extracts from coal-derived
soot. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">It is noted that the type of coal used by households in most, if not all,
of the epidemiological studies in this assessment, was raw (unprocessed)1 coal.
The overall evaluation concluded that indoor emissions from household
combustion of coal are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). This evidence was
assessed as being of high quality.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A6.1.3 Toxic contaminants - </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Review 8 identified studies
reporting on health effects of five toxic contaminants in coal, arsenic,
fluorine, selenium, mercury and lead. These studies provide evidence on toxin
content of coals, combustion and emissions chemistry, exposure routes (i.e.
food, air, water), air pollution and exposure levels, and health impacts. Of
the contaminants, the risks and effects of arsenic and fluorine are the two
most comprehensively investigated and reported. Most of the evidence on the effects
of contaminants derives from studies in China. The assessment of evidence for
health risks from toxic contaminants of coal was based on an overall evaluation
of the available studies covering all of the aspects noted above. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">The data
obtained on the content of toxic contaminants in coal, the fact that these are
not destroyed on combustion, measurements of toxins in air and food (which are
the main routes of exposure), and some dose measurements (e.g. in blood)
strongly indicate that use of contaminated coals in the home puts members of
the household at risk.</p></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Dean</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:01 AM, 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">
Dear ALL,
(post to <a href="http://drtlud.com" target="_blank">drtlud.com</a> website)<br>
<br>
EVERYONE should carefully read Crispin's message (below). I cannot
substantiate his comments about specific stoves, and we will hope
that Prof. Lloyd will send references about the Scotch Method.<br>
<br>
Otherwise, I am IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH CRISPIN. Read each line,
soak it in. <br>
<br>
Concerning the stoves in Mongolia, of course I am delighted that:
<blockquote type="cite"><span>all
but one of them is a TLUD. </span></blockquote>
But that is not the issue. The issue is that low grade coal is
able to be burned cleanly in sufficiently inexpensive cookstoves for
the climate and culture. Note that those Mongolian stoves have an
important function for household heating, helping to justify the
higher costs of stoves with heavier metal. The probable financial
assistance ("subsidy" to the purchaser) can be justified in the
clean air accomplishments that benefit not just the impoverished
people, but also all of the wealthy who want clean air both locally
and internationally (global air quality issues are important). <br>
<br>
The Mongolian stoves are not being proclaimed as being for tropical
areas where the stove constructions and costs need to be different.<br>
<br>
About coal as fuel for stoves and home heaters: Coal needs to be
included in the fuels for cookstoves WHEN COUPLED WITH CLEAN-BURNING
STOVES. When that is the case, the only major "negative
characteristic" is that coal is a fossil fuel (being carbon positive
to the atmosphere). Well, that also applies to LPG !!!! which is
a very highly regarded fuel for clean cookstoves. Double standards
are not acceptable. This issue needs to be addressed!!! <br>
<br>
And it should be addressed at least by the time of the GACC Forum in
Ghana on 10 -13 Nov where a resolution or statement or declaration
(or whatever groups do) could be officially made about the
acceptability of coal as a cookstove fuel WHEN USED IN CLEAN-BURNING
STOVES.<br>
<br>
None of the above is against fan-assisted stoves or natural draft
TLUDs. Instead, the effort is to get coal and the <b><u>appropriate
</u></b>coal-burning stoves added to the list of contributing
solutions to the world's cookstove problems.<br>
<br>
Comments please to the Stoves Listserv.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<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: <a href="tel:%2B1-309-452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div>On 9/14/2015 10:45 PM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear
Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>That
linked document has this to say: “</span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">For
biomass cooking, pending further evidence from the field,
significant health benefits are possible only with the
highest quality fan gasifier stoves…”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>I
don’t know who invented that idea – it is traceable to Kirk
Smith (Bangkok, Nov 2010) but I think the concept that ‘the
only really clean stoves are fan assisted gasifiers’ is
older than that. Maybe it emerged from Berkeley. It doesn’t
matter.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>It
is not true. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Is
that clear enough? How else can we say it? It is not true
that the only really clean stoves are fan assisted
gasifiers. This caution is also contained in the statement,
“It is not true that the only really clean stoves are fan
assisted or ND TLUD pyrolysers.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The
most expensive externally funded improved stove replacement
programme in the world is the Mongolian urban ger stove
programme, funded by the US-based MCC through the
MCA-Mongolia account, the WB, the Asian Development Bank and
the City Government of Ulaanbaatar. There are a large number
of additional players including Xaas Bank, carbon trading
funders and national Ministries. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Assiduously
examining a large number of stove options, and creating an
advanced testing laboratory on a shoe string, incorporating
a test method that predicts reasonably the field performance
(field testing proved to be nearly impossible, even for
LBNL, which tried hard) a set of stoves that are well over
90% cleaner than the baseline stoves (several >98%) was
selected for distribution. Not one of them is fan assisted
and not one of them is a pyrolyser save in the sense that
all coal stoves are pyrolysers. Certainly it is true that
all solid fuel stoves are gasifiers. Quibbling will not
change the fact flames burn gas.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>A
lot of people worked hard to bring this together and pull
off the biggest clean-up of a major city’s air ever
accomplished without changing the fuel – because the fuel
was <i>never </i>the problem. It is an excellent fuel and
burns so cleanly the stove comparison chart would have to
create two more tiers to fairly accommodate them. The fact
that this achievement is still ignored continues to stain
the ICS community. The reason for this is obvious: coal is
supposed to be the demon fuel that cannot be burned cleanly.
Millions of people are going to burn coal for a long time to
come – deal with it. Burn it properly.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>These
super-clean stoves originate from Turkey, China and
Mongolia. The producers pay no attention to anything going
on in the “TLUD world”, even though all but one of them is a
TLUD. It is unfortunate that the fictions that “solid fuels
cannot be burned cleanly”, and “only fans work”, and “coal
cannot be burned cleanly” because it contains “pollution”
are repeated by those who should know their field better.
Making these statements makes the speaker look like a
disconnected amateur. Modern Austrian fireplaces are cleaner
than most very improved stoves and they are made of brick
for heaven’s sake. They are not even ‘stoves’. The Russians
are building ‘bell’ heat exchangers that are brilliant. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The
IC stove community has to start living in the present. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Here
is a test of the laboratory air at the SEET lab and the
emissions of a cross draft stove (currently reproduced
exactly by a small local welding shop in Ulaanbaatar):<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>[[ Image deleted from copy
of message.]]<br>
</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>These
two Dusttraks were compared with each other before this
photo was taken. They agreed within 2 micrograms at a
concentration of more than 400. The one on the left is
brand new, brought by LBNL (Berkeley) measuring the ambient
air (195 </span><span>µ</span><span>g/m<sup>3</sup>)
and the one on the right is from SEET Lab sampling directly
from the chimney (0</span><span>
µ</span><span>g/m<sup>3</sup>).
<i>That </i>is a clean stove.<i> </i>The dirty air going
into the stove is being cleaned by the fire, while burning
wet lignite: 50% volatiles (AD) and 26% moisture.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>It
is high time to admit that coal and indeed wood can be
burned by a number of methods extremely well. No fuel has a
monopoly on cleanliness. The concept of a ‘dirty fuel’ is
archaic and was never correct. It was always a
misconception.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Equally
incorrect is the idea that ethanol, for example, is a ‘clean
fuel’. I have just seen a test of an ethanol stove that
doesn’t come close to meeting the South African kerosene
stove test requirement at high power or low. This is quite
common. Most ethanol stoves are not very clean when it comes
to CO. They literally can’t hold a candle to the stoves sold
in Ulaanbaatar that burn lignite. Why? Bad combustion.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>What’s
next? China of course. And India. Why should their stove
programmes be held back by errant preconceptions originating
within the ‘clean air’ and ‘clean stove’ communities? If the
clean air and clean stove communities can’t keep up with
reality, others will step in to lead. Projects are not going
to be willing to spend $50m on junk science claims. Or
$500m.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul,
you are correct to ask for references. The method of burning
coal “TLUD” is called the ‘Scotch Method’ in South African
and goes back over a century. I believe Prof Lloyd has some
sources for that because he was thinking about the problem
in the mid-70’s.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards
to all<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Crispin<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<pre><u></u> <u></u></pre>
<pre>In case you have not seen this, micro-gasifiers have received some significant recognition (ESMAP + GACC 2015 publication, page 90). <u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf" target="_blank">https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf</a> <u></u><u></u></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre style="line-height:106%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-US"> “<b>The most exciting technology trend in the biomass cookstove sector is<u></u><u></u></b></span></pre>
<pre style="line-height:106%"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">the growing range of forced draft and natural draft gasifier stoves</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">. These stoves have shown the greatest<u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre style="line-height:106%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">potential to improve health and environmental outcomes, at least under<u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-US">laboratory conditions.” (ESMAP 2015, p. 90). </span><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><u></u> <u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<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>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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" rel="noreferrer" 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/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Dean Still</div><div dir="ltr">Executive Director<div>Aprovecho Research Center</div><div>PO Box 1175</div><div>76132 Blue Mountain School Road</div><div>Cottage Grove, OR 97424</div><div>(541) 767-0287</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>