<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=windows-1255">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Karin, Verena and All<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I appreciate the explanations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I have just emerged from the Black Carbon Summit organised by the Polish Government, ICCI, CCAC and the GACC in Warsaw. One of the major outcomes
was a clear picture of the change that, while mostly in the mind, has its roots in the performance of advanced stoves: there is a decoupling of emissions from fuel type.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Fuels have chemistry, and stoves have combustion efficiencies. The former leads to ‘inherent emissions’ and the latter leads to ‘combustion emissions’.
Black Carbon is not an inherent emission.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The concept of a ‘clean fuel’ is, without doubt, rooted in the assumption that combustion emissions are in fact inherent emissions. This is a conceptual
error. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">There was a presentation on advances in coal combustion (it was a conference on small coal and wood fire heating stoves) using state of the art in
Poland. The emissions of PM2.5 (which are combustion emissions and the lofting of particles of fly ash) were reduced to 4-5 mg per cu metre (O<sub>2</sub> normalised to 6%) by the combination of their fifth tier boilers and the addition of a 1 kW electrostatic
precipitator.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Testing at the China Agriculture University by Altanzul has shown that the TJ4.0 stove (which is two models behind the current one) has emissions
in approximately that same range. This was achieved without electric controls, fans or stack cleaning. In short, there is no meaningful relationship between the fuel type (wood, as demonstrated by the Austrians and by the Masonry Heaters in the US or coal
as demonstrated in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan this winter) and PM emissions. In the case of the Austrian and Americans, the standard (20mg) was met without electronic controls or stack cleaning.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thus the concept incorporated in the thesis of the paper of ‘people moving to clean fuels’ is mistaken. They already use ‘fuels’ which if burned
properly, produce very clean results, as much as 75% below the highest EU standard for air quality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I agree that there is a war on solid fuels but as we heard in Warsaw, this is not limited to solid fuels only. For about 18 years now there has also
been a war on paraffin (kerosene) waged on the basis that ‘it is burned badly in lighting appliances in India’ as if that somehow defined properties of the fuel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Believe me, kerosene is still on the hit list of the WHO. It is classified as a ‘dirty fuel’ in spite of being the most widely used energy carrier
for modern aviation. Ultra-low emissions kerosene appliances like aircraft, FLOX burners and stoves are ignored while 19<sup>th</sup> century wick lamps are held up not to illuminate the subject, but to cloud the issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I realise it is very fashionable in some circles to promote subsidised LPG. It would be far more effective far sooner and far cheaper in the long
run to promote cleaning burning appliances than to subsidise LPG for the next few decades through its expensive, regulation-ensconced and inevitably long supply chain.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If we want transformation at scale, it is far easier to move a stove for a day than fuel for a lifetime.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear Karin<br>
Thanks for the exchange. <br>
The gasifier solution is a true option and very promising. Even wood burning stoves are progressing, e.g. Rocket works stoves et al. I would love to see us not excluding solutions and always thinking in alternative options to choose from.
<br>
I would love to see who/paho also opening eyes for those alternatives. <br>
<br>
However<br>
I also hope you can disclose the funding background of the study /publication.<br>
<br>
Thank you<br>
Verena <br>
<br>
Von meinem Windows Phone gesendet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Von:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="mailto:karintroncoso@gmail.com">Karin Troncoso</a></span><br>
<b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Gesendet: </span>
</b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ý26.ý05.ý2017 16:55</span><br>
<b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">An: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a></span><br>
<b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Betreff: </span>
</b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Re: [Stoves] Another attack on solid fuels by public health Stoves Digest, Vol 81, Issue 19</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear list and Nikhil <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">I am glad that my paper reached your attention, I was planning to share it with the list anyway.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">The purpose of the paper was to do an exploratory analysis of the effects of LPG subsidies in LAC on reducing the use of solid fuels.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Nikhil said that the paper does not mention LPG prices or subsidies. This is not true. It says:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">“Subsidies vary significantly between countries. For example, in 2013 the cost per kg of LPG with subsidy was USD$0.65 in the Dominican Republic, USD$0.6 in Brazil,
USD $0.44 in El Salvador, USD$0.33 in Bolivia, USD$0.13 in Ecuador and USD$0.07 in Venezuela (OLADE, 2012; Kojima, 2013b).” The idea was to compare level of subsidies between those countries and therefore we use the same unit (kg).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">We did not mention firewood prices, as they vary a lot even in a given country, and precisely in the paper we acknowledge that firewood usually is cheap or even
free in LAC. With the exception of some urban cities, LPG would never compete with firewood prices, unless there is a big subsidy.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Nikhil is right, we give an example without mentioning the size of the cylinder or the amount of firewood bought. We wrote: “Kojima’s studies on the response
of users to relative prices indicate that firewood prices would need to increase considerably before a household would consider replacing firewood for LPG for economic reasons. In Mexico for instance, a study performed by the authors (to be published) in two
rural communities of Chiapas in February 2017, showed that 59% of the households already pay in average 370 pesos (US$ 20) per month to buy firewood. The cost of a LPG cylinder is 300 pesos (USD 16) and people that use LPG exclusively in these communities
buy a cylinder every three or four weeks. When asked why not they use LPG to cook all their meals, 96% said because they cannot afford it. When asked if they will use it if the cost of the cylinder was 50 pesos, 82% said they would use it, but 14% said maybe
and 4% said no, because there are other considerations besides the price, as for example, the difficulty to make tortillas with a regular LPG stove.” The reason we did not have the need to give that information was again, because what we wanted to show was
that many households are already spending almost the same amount of money per month in firewood that what they would need for LPG. The example was intended to show that reasons behind firewood use are more complex than just the assumption that because you
already spend money buying firewood you are going to switch to LPG. It is a good example that to take something from a paper completely out of context can be misleading.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">We mentioned India with the only purpose of showing the efforts of some countries to modify universal subsidies that are very difficult to reform:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">“Many countries are seeking strategies to reform universal subsidies to better target the poorest population, as is the case of El Salvador. I</span><span lang="EN">n
India, a national program called "give it up" is asking middle class members to give up their LPG subsidy (US$ 30-40), which will be transferred to a poor family. 30,000 people each month are donating their subsidy, representing a shift of US$ 1 trillion to
the poor (The Economic Times, 2016).” It is completely irrelevant for the paper. Again, why do you center your attack to the paper in examples that have nothing to do with the main line of research? That it is: subsidies seem to have helped switching to LPG
the solid fuel users in urban areas in Bolivia and El Salvador and almost everybody in Ecuador and Venezuela. Targeted subsidies may be an option to increase access to clean fuels by 2030.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN">Finally, we do not represent public health and promoting clean fuels when possible is not a war against solid fuels. It is my aspiration that one day everybody has
access to clean fuels for all their needs, and this may require switching to electricity, biogas and other clean fuels (clean from the point of view of health). It may require the development of new technologies that may use solid fuels. Helping poor people
to have access to LPG or electricity with a subsidy may be part of the solution. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN">Karin Troncoso</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
Message: 13<br>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 09:52:49 +0530<br>
From: Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
Subject: [Stoves] Another attack on solid fuels by public health<br>
adventurers<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAK27e=nkuo7S1Y_0Og0=c==xeO=<a href="mailto:6c6mL7V4nzNtb12jA94WAJg@mail.gmail.com">6c6mL7V4nzNtb12jA94WAJg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Available for free for a few days more. LPG fuel subsidies in Latin America<br>
and the use of solid fuels to cook<br>
<<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517302719" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517302719</a>>, Karin<br>
Troncoso, forthcoming in Energy Policy Volume 107, August 2017, Pages<br>
188?196<br>
<br>
"This study analyzes the relation between fuel subsidies to LPG and solid<br>
fuel use."<br>
<br>
Without mentioning LPG price or a subsidy. Where the price of a cylinder is<br>
mentioned, the size of the cylinder is not mentioned. And when expenditure<br>
on fuelwood is mentioned, the volume/weight of the purchase is not<br>
mentioned.<br>
<br>
It's cite-o-logy galore, peppering platitudes by throwing in some names and<br>
dates at the end, as if that shows any proof of validity of the assertion.<br>
<br>
Any purpose to this?<br>
<br>
Simple. The Quixotic war against solid fuels.<br>
<br>
Public health (profession) can be a risk factor for solid fuel use.<br>
<br>
Take this sentence "India opted for a voluntary program called ?give it up?<br>
that asks middle class LPG consumers to give up their LPG fuel subsidy<br>
(US$16 per year), which is transferred to a poor family. As of April 2016,<br>
10 million people had adhered to the program (The Economic Times, 2016<br>
<<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517302719#bib41" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517302719#bib41</a>><br>
)."<br>
<br>
What utter baloney to say "10 million people had adhered to the program".<br>
GiveItUp and alleged transfer of the subsidy to a poor family is a gimmick.<br>
Most of those "given up" subsidies were fictitious or not utilized in the<br>
first place, but our Modi government is as good at cooking up numbers as<br>
WHO and if $16 a year or less than one US penny a day per capita is the<br>
LPG price subsidy in India, there are a few billion dollars somewhere in<br>
the gutters of Indian cities.<br>
<br>
Lesson: Skip the whole paper. I am collecting gratitude at the rate of<br>
$1.90 per capita per day.<br>
<br>
DOES ANY BODY CARE<br>
<br>
Nikhil<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Nikhil Desai<br>
(India +91) 909 995 2080<br>
Skype: nikhildesai888<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170520/f39efa8a/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170520/f39efa8a/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH;<br>
Sitz der Gesellschaft Bonn und Eschborn/Registered offices Bonn and Eschborn, Germany;<br>
Registergericht/Registered at Amtsgericht Bonn, Germany; Eintragungs-Nr./Registration no. HRB 18384 und/and Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Eintragungs-Nr./Registration no. HRB 12394;<br>
USt-IdNr./VAT ID no. DE 113891176;<br>
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Dr. Friedrich Kitschelt, Staatssekretaer/State Secretary;<br>
Vorstand/Management Board: Tanja Goenner (Vorstandssprecherin/Chair of the Management Board), Dr. Christoph Beier (Stellv. Vorstandssprecher/Vice-Chair of the Management Board), Dr. Hans-Joachim Preuss, Cornelia Richter</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>