<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Nikhil wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">All I know is Kirk Smith's claim that as of
yet, no biomass stove has proved to be "truly health protective".
I disagree with that claim </blockquote>
"truly health protective" is a relative term, and subject to the
interpretation of the observer. And a health expert is probably
more particular than a layperson.<br>
<br>
My automobile is not "truly safe", but I use it frequently and for
long trips. My driving it could kill me someday, but I am not
willing to be without it. Sure glad I am not using a "safe" horse
and buggy (although with so many FEWER miles travelled each year, I
could be more safe). Same can be said for many things.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, 3 billion people cook on solid fuels in the oldest of
ways, and they could have much better stoves. I am referring to
the GOOD stoves, of which the TLUDs (and anything EQUAL) are at the
top of the list for those stoves using dry biomass (See Figure 1 and
discussion in ESMAP 2015 tech report 007 co-published with GACC.)<br>
<br>
As I have said before, I am not against LPG stoves. I am against
them sucking up all the funding to get the good stoves to the
poorest people. <br>
<br>
Are people in the govenment and agencies in India reading these
messages? Or their advisors, including GACC? The program there is
for 50 million LPG stoves to low-income houses by 2020. What is
the budget for that? Previous messages stated something over
US$100 per stove in fuel subsidies PER YEAR and onward. 50
million x $100 is $5 BILLION per year. Even half of that is
outlandish.<br>
<br>
We can be sure that the LPG industry is not taking a loss on this
project. I am quite sure that there is a major LPG meeting in India
this month, with stoves being highlighted. Is anyone representing
the alternatives to the policy makers and money people? <br>
<br>
Alternatives include: The TLUD stoves as shown in the Deganga
study (if you have not read about those 12,000 stoves by now, you
are challenged to do so. <a
href="http://drtlud.com/deganga-tlud-project-2016">http://drtlud.com/deganga-tlud-project-2016</a>
) Using that methodology and a one-time per stove price of
$40, that would be 25 million TLUD stoves into Indian households for
merely $1 billion. And the money spent in Indian factories that
make the stoves. <br>
<br>
And because each TLUD can earn 4 carbon credits per year of usage,
India (or the project corporate sponsors) could claim 100 million
carbon credits per year for the duration of the stove usage, which
can be sustained with modest support to the communities. At $10 per
carbon credit, that would be a "repayment" to India and its people
of one billion dollars. EACH YEAR. <br>
<br>
Oh yes, the LPG stoves are headed first and foremost to the poor in
the urban and peri-urban areas. Good. Easiest for delivery of
LPG and hardest for delivery of dry biomass (until pellet-fuel
business gets established). And the TLUD stoves are headed first
and foremost to the poor (and the real BOP people) in the rural
areas. I call that at least as good as what LPG can accomplish,
and for a fraction of the cost. <br>
<br>
Is it too late for India to change course? Probably so. Continue
with a year of LPG efforts. See what LPG can accomplish. <b><u>But
at least let a serious altenative get some good part of the
funding. </u></b> I do not know for sure, but I expect that in
2020 or before there will be a comparative accounting study of the
cost/benefits of the LPG and TLUD stove initiatives in India. Hands
down, TLUDs will win. And win BIG. and the backers of LPG can
gather together and count their big pile of money, but for impact,
they will have lost out.<br>
<br>
And what about Haiti??? 50 million dollars from Canada are headed
that way. And the LPG industry has already shown its intentions.
And the TLUD efforts are just getting started, but will be there. <br>
<br>
For more detail, please come to the ETHOS meeting in the Seattle
area, Saturday evening session, 28 January 2017, open to the public
as well as for ETHOS participants. I will be be going into more
depth about the India TLUD work, Carbon financing developments, and
specifics for a proposal regarding Haiti and TLUD stoves (and
including other stove types that do have roles to play.)<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/7/2017 3:38 PM, Traveller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK27e=n84dLJ4y9U3FVntQARf0cCead0cFpT0T9yhz-TgGdUDg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Crispin: <br>
<br>
After the mirage, desert wanderers can put on blinders. <br>
<div><br>
I am shocked at - "<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,"slate
pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;font-size:medium">The claim
that solid fuels 'cannot be burned cleanly enough to meet
WHO indoor air quality standards unless the stove has a
fan". </span>Who pray tell has made this claim and how
relevant is it? (I can imagine an economist making such a
claim. Did I ever say that?) <br>
<br>
Besides, how in the world WHO IAQ Guidelines get converted to
"standards"? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is TC 285 in the business of declaring some stoves with
some fuels meet WHO IAQ Guidelines? That would be patent
fraud. You claim the claim "<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,"slate
pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;font-size:medium">is
patently false, falsified by numerous devices on the market.
We can't even say that placing a crib of wood on top of a n
existing fire cannot burn cleanly, without the MHA pointing
out they are doing exactly that. </span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Who/what is MHA? <br>
<br>
All I know is Kirk Smith's claim that as yet, no biomass stove
has proved to be "truly health protective". I disagree with
that claim and if that claim is rooted in some TC 285
procedures -- Water Boiling Test, or whatever else it does,
with whatever fuel quality and whatever EPA/BAMG "box models"
- it is immoral. <br>
<br>
To me, there is no basis for IAQ Guidelines. WHO doesn't hare
the jurisdiction, nor the competence. If any such jugglery was
going on for the US, TC 285 could be drawn to courts. <br>
<br>
And if any ISO standards based on TC 285 are applicable -
leave alone applied - to the US, that would be grounds enough
to draw ISO in a US court. (I assume US is a member of the ISO
but it cannot claim immunity because I doubt there is any
legislative provision for EPA and private organization such as
GACC to pursue such outlandish avenues of pseudo-science.) <br>
<br>
********</div>
<br>
Fuel-fetishists' fancy about clean fuel - "<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,"slate
pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;font-size:medium">One is that
it will automatically burn 'cleanly' regardless of the device
it is in." </span>- will never be satisfied. <br>
<br>
It is not that LPG combustion can have high emission rates.
Rather, the fact remains that examples of automatic and
continuous combustion over long periods of LPG burning in
"unclean" manner are probably confined to industrial fires. <br>
<br>
For all practical purposes, LPG is a "clean fuel". So is
methane. (I am sure biomass can be converted to propane or
butane.) <br>
<br>
It is when general biomasses are concerned - tree products of
different variety, shrubbery, grasses, dung, roots, paper,
leaves, crop wastes - that examples of "unclean combustion"
abound, sometimes automatic and continuous. <br>
<br>
For all practical purposes, solid fuel uses (biomasses mentioned
plus coals) in cooking and heating stoves in most developing
country situations I have observed is "unclean". <br>
<br>
So, in terms of current actual usage, liquids are "clean fuels"
because their burners are designed to deliver relatively far
cleaner combustion over long periods, and solid fuels are
"unclean" EXCEPT when used with BETTER BURNERS. <br>
<br>
It is only in the totality of use -- not just emission loads per
meal cooked, as tested in labs -- that a fuel is "clean" or
"unclean".
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nikhil</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>