<div dir="ltr">Paul, Tom, List members: <div><br></div><div>I have agreed about gasifier stoves. I first learnt about gasifier technology back in 1980 (from Russ deLucia, if anybody on this List knows him), and in my publication-quality advocacy writings for "modern energy transition", I always (I think) added a qualifier for either "advanced biomass" or specifically "bioliquids and bio-gaseous" (though without being specific about methanation v. thermal gasification). </div><div><br></div><div>I confess that last I did any concrete advice or advocacy (ten years ago), it was for methanation, not thermal gasification. I didn't think the technology was ready at the household scale. It was around 2008/9 that I began to see the promise, probably after meeting Steve Joseph in Sydney and learning about biochar. </div><div><br></div><div>I am willing to concede - because I have long hoped - that "<span style="font-size:x-large">On a dollar for dollar basis (or even 1 :4 ratio), gasifier stoves can easily reach and benefit more poor people in developing societies than can LPG.</span>"<span style="font-size:x-large"> </span></div><div><br>Still, that proposition needs to be made more credible - I am not looking for proofs - in terms of i) identifying the relevant economic geographies (a difficult but not impossible task, just that one should prepare "dynamic baselines"); ii) articulating project design and implementation arrangements, including large-scale pilots; and iii) in my view, covering all cooking (incl. commercial) and possibly small-scale heating, in large towns and peri-urban areas, with a diversity of fuels (LPG included). <br><br>I am glad you say only "reach and benefit", so your metric is # of people reached and benefitted per $ (or million $, say). I am fine with that; reaching people who actually find the technology useful and use it is a good enough. I'll leave it to bean-counters to quantify the benefits and assign monetary values to it. (I will do it for money. My benefit, you know.) <br><br>I think the time has come to get past old obsession of saving trees and new mania of saving lives by assumptions (reverse of GBD), and looking for "ready markets", not just "poor rural households". But I don't hold too tightly to that view. </div><div><br></div><div>I don't particularly care for 'carbon positive' (I am carbon positive; shoot me!) or 'renewable' (the best renewable resource is the minds of youth, compromised by the drudgery of traditional cooking and heating). <br>**********</div>You say, <br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">"Perhaps the medical / health evidence is strong for gasifers, but not as strong as for LPG. I can accept that. BUT, for every household that can be supplied with LPG SUSTAINABLY, there are thousands (or tens of thousands?) of households that can be SUSTAINABLY fueled with dry biomass fuel and gasifier stoves. </blockquote><br>Therefore, for actual "body counts" of how many millions of lives will be saved, my bet is that gasifiers (when adequately supported for use in impoverished homes) will out-perform the LPG / fossil fuel by 100 to 1." <br><br>Sorry to say, "medical/health evidence" is a delusion. All we have is spotty evidence - I will get around to reviewing WHO's "Evidence Reviews" at some point; it's not worth the hassle, the horse has left the barn - of correlating this with that, and then making up a "WHO database" of fuels and emissions - a grand fiction - plus theories of PM2.5 toxicity, plus the manipulations of "Integrated Exposure Response" to cook up GLOBAL burden of disease. There isn't very much to the INDIVIDUAL or COMMUNITY burden of disease except ALRI and possibly pneumonia. <br><br>To me, SUSTAINABLY refers to how long subsidies can last. Like Social Security and Medicare. We are all dead in the long run. <br><br>To vote for LPG doesn't mean ruling out gasifiers and vice versa. Leave it to the connoisseurs on the lawns of the White House and the Imperial Hotel to make up "body counts". To explain "millions dead" is one thing, to forecast "millions saved" is quite another. (Because "premature mortality", by definition, is a cohort-specific metric, as are DALYs and "risk factors". Anybody who can confidently and verifiably forecast DALYs for the 130 million babies born this year will get a Nobel Peas Prize next year. I am accepting applications.) <br><br>In any case, "we" have been voting against LPG and coal-fired electricity all too long, in search of saving forests. The poor have been wiser not to listen to us or donor propaganda, and found their own solutions, thanks to their own hard work and common sense. <br>**********<br><div>I notice in Prof. Smith's presentation on Paraguay last year (Health Impacts of Household Air Pollution in Paraguay #2: What is to be done?, 25 August 2015), </div><div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><blockquote style="font-size:12.8px;margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>The cleanest stove models have been disseminated to only a few thousand households in the region</div><div><br></div><div>And, as yet, no biomass stove in the world comes close to the boundary – is<i> clean enough to be truly health protective in household use</i></div><div><br></div><div><i>Perhaps they can be clean enough, but much more work is needed</i>"<br> </div></blockquote><div>To me, this begs the question, what is "truly health protective" and what are the "baselines" and "boundaries" of health? </div><div><br></div><div>I for one am an incrementalist, and believe i) the best can be an enemy of good, ii) technical opinions and prognoses are secondary; the cook is supreme (in and outside the household). <br><br>I know I will get into boiling water if the water boilers of ISO IWA take notice. Oh, well; insolence will be one of the risk factor my premature mortality will be assigned to. </div></div><div><br></div><div>Prof. Smith also took the position, against a Nature editorial, "<span style="font-size:12.8px">Contrary to the impression you convey (see Nature 509, 533; 2014) </span><u style="font-size:12.8px">biomass-burning cooking technology is advancing steadily. Stoves are now more efficient and emit much less smoke, and will remain popular as long as users can access biomass, such as wood and dung, at zero direct cost. Efforts must therefore continue to make clean fuels available and available fuels clean</u><span style="font-size:12.8px">."</span>("Cookstoves: clean up fuel on two fronts, Nature, July 3, 2014)</div><div><br></div><div>I happen to think that it's not just "cooking technology" (device, fuel, operating practices) alone but also ventilation and quantity, quality of food that makes cooking "truly health protective".<br><br>But leaving nutrition aside, we need some Total Drudgery Quotient, as perceived by the users, to see how adoption new technologies is influenced by the users' balancing of perceived cost, convenience, cleanliness, safety in particular contexts (which remain to be well-characterized). </div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise, all "Up in Smoke". Again. No matter what the lab efficiencies and emission rates for boiling waters. (Whose meals are being cooked?) </div><div><br></div><div>Nikhil</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>--------- </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">(US +1) 202-568-5831<br><i> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 5:25 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">
<div class="m_1574344290702895907moz-cite-prefix">Stovers, (sorry this is a long
message, but I think you will find it lively. At least read what
is at the bottom.)<br>
<br>
On 11/6/2016 2:18 PM, Traveller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
Maybe someone wants to prove Kirk Smith wrong - for him saying LPG
is <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:verdana;font-size:13.3333px">"</span><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)" face="georgia, serif" size="4">the fuel
that could save millions of lives every year. • By definition!"</font><br>
<br>
That comment has great depth to it -- the way "Burden of Disease"
has been computed is by treating "Solid Fuel Use" as the sole
source of Household Air Pollution (with quantities and emission
factors cooked up in collective fantasies). Therefore, LPG is the
savior fuel BY DEFINITION. <br>
<br>
I have no problem with that, </blockquote>
I can agree with Nikhil on that. LPG is good. Can save lives.
Fine. <br>
<br>
But let's separate the gasifier stoves from the 3-stone fires and
simple improved cookstoves. ESMAP (World Bank) did that in the
major 2015 document:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size:38.7451px;font-family:sans-serif">THE STATE OF THE GLOBAL
CLEAN </div>
<div style="font-size:38.7451px;font-family:sans-serif">AND IMPROVED COOKING
SECTOR</div>
</blockquote>
available at: <br>
<a class="m_1574344290702895907moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf?sequence=1" target="_blank">https://openknowledge.<wbr>worldbank.org/bitstream/<wbr>handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf?<wbr>sequence=1</a><br>
<br>
And the GACC certainly knows about it, because the GACC is the
co-publisher. And Kirk Smith knows about it.<br>
<br>
If you have not seen it, please take a look. Summary is on page
13, and a copy of that page is attached to this message (with yellow
highlights added by Anderson)<br>
<br>
The ESMAP and GACC publication CLEARLY classifies the gasifier
technology of solid biomass fuels as "Advanced ICS" (separate from
the Legacy, Basic, and Intermediate ICS stove technologies). The
Advanced ICS (gasifiers) is one of three of the major headings of
"Clean Cooking Solutions" along with the "Modern Fuel Stoves"
(fossil fuels LPG, Natural Gas, and Kerosene-with-footnote), and
with "Renewable Fuel Stoves" (Biogas, alcohols, solar).<br>
<br>
As Nikhil says, and I have agreed, Kirk Smith's comment about saving
lives "by definition" has some validity (if it was properly
qualitied about other "fuels" like alcohol as also saving lives BY
DEFINITION.). But he is not acknowledging or advocating alcohol
stoves, or natural gas stoves. LPG is clearly the glory child in
this case. (and dry biomass is the whipping boy).<br>
<br>
Using similar wording, I would like to say that the following is
also true:<br>
<br>
Gasifier stoves are <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:verdana;font-size:13.3333px">"</span><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)" face="georgia, serif" size="4">the [stove
technology] that could save millions of lives every year. • By
definition!"<br>
</font><br>
AND<br>
<br>
WHEN USED WITH MODERN, PROVEN, AVAILABLE GASIFIER STOVES, then wood
(chips, segments, pellets, etc) AND even agricultural refuse (maize
cobs, briquettes of stems,) and even appropriate dung cubes are <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:verdana;font-size:13.3333px">"</span><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)" face="georgia, serif" size="4">the fuels
that could save millions of lives every year. • By definition!"<br>
<br>
</font><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> I have written my agreement
with what Kirk Smith has written, I hope he will write his
agreement with what I have written.</font><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)" size="4"><br>
</font><br>
I also add: Perhaps the medical / health evidence is strong for
gasifers, but not as strong as for LPG. I can accept that. BUT,
for every household that can be supplied with LPG SUSTAINABLY,
there are thousands (or tens of thousands?) of households that can
be SUSTAINABLY fueled with dry biomass fuel and gasifier stoves. <br>
<br>
Therefore, for actual "body counts" of how many millions of lives
will be saved, my bet is that gasifiers (when adequately supported
for use in impoverished homes) will out-perform the LPG / fossil
fuel by 100 to 1. <br>
<br>
Nikhil wrote (and I agree) that Nikhil has a problem<br>
<blockquote type="cite">just with the assumption that solid fuel use
is by definition "dirty". Fuels don't have "dirtiness" embedded in
them; processed solid fuels can achieve better combustion and of
course highly controlled combustion and proper ash management can
also achieve far cleaner combustion that what is assumed to be the
case.</blockquote>
<br>
Summary: Except that LPG is a carbon positive fossil fuel, I have
no complaints about the promotion of LPG cookstoves. <br>
<br>
Well, there is actually one additional issue. The amounts of
financial and in-kind assistance that are given to LPG should ALSO
be given to the gasifier stoves. How much? Equal amount in
total? Or equal amount per household served? Or maybe
one-quarter of the amount of each household served by LPG? On a
dollar for dollar basis (or even 1 :4 ratio), gasifier stoves can
easily reach and benefit more poor people in developing societies
than can LPG. <br>
<br>
Let me repeat that, this time as a challenge:<br>
<font size="+2">On a dollar for dollar basis (or even 1 :4 ratio),
gasifier stoves can easily reach and benefit more poor people in
developing societies than can LPG. </font><br>
<br>
Such a research question would bring more funding for gasifier
stoves that has ever been available!! But that is not my purpose.
I am not against LPG.<br>
<br>
My purpose is to simply say that it is about time for some serious
funding for gasifier stoves into the households that can utilize
them. A great example is the Case Study of TLUD stoves in Deganga,
India (on the Internet since 30 September this year, and featured at
my website <a class="m_1574344290702895907moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a> ).<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="m_1574344290702895907moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_1574344290702895907moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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 class="m_1574344290702895907moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>