<div dir="ltr"><div>Paul: <br><br>Some reactions in <font color="#134f5c">*** </font>below. <br><br></div><div>Nikhil</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div> <br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:26 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">
Stovers, <br>
<br>
Kirk Smith has shared his latest book-chapter. Links to it are
below.<br>
<br>
I make several comments, mostly with my focus on "solid biomass fuel
stoves":<br>
<br>
1. The content about LPG fuel and stoves in India is quite
worthwhile. The chapter is based on 8 solid peer-reviewed writings
that are listed in the Endnotes (all written by Smith, often with
co-authors.) For that reason, much of what is in the book chapter
is very similar to prevous writings. So this chapter brings
numerous segments together nicely. <br>
<br>
2. One paragraph (middle of the fourth page of the .pdf document)
is about biomass stoves: It says:<br>
<br>
"None of this [about LPG] has, however, affected the budget of the
renewable energy ministry, which still runs the national biomass and
biogas stove programs. These programmes should still be
encouraged,but perhaps now be better focused on the very poorest and
more remote populations that will not be reached by LPG in the next
decade." ... <br>
<b>[That is an important concession that Smith clearly makes in many
of his writings. And he goes on to say.]</b><br>
<br>
..."These people would still benefit from more efficient stoves that
at least lower pollution exposure to some extent."<br>
<br>
[That is a nice concession, but it certainly is not very forceful.
To say "... to some extent" could be a justification for mediocre
ICS stoves. Perhaps to let the poor folks have Tier 2 and Tier 3
stoves? <br>
And then he puts in the kicker, the comment to kill the truly clean
burning biomass stoves:]<br>
<br>
..."Unfortunately, however, no biomass stove on the market today is
nearly as reliably clean as gas fuels and, thus, cannot be proposed
yet as a health measure if gas is available." <br>
<br>
I do note the qualifier words "... if gas is available." The rest
of the chapter says that LPG or PNG (piped natural gas) is coming.
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
But would Smith say that sentence without the final four words?
Will he acknowledge that there are very clean burning stoves that
burn biomass? <br></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>*<font color="#38761d">** I pointed out that compared to how Kirk Smith was quoted in the 2015 Washington Post opinion piece by Marc Gunther, he added both "as a health measure" and "if gas is available." I for one don't assign any particular meaning to "health measure". A stove is not a pill, leave alone without any FDA approval. And "availability" of gas is a contextual issue - available where? At the port two miles away in a tanker or in a pipe to the home or a cylinder a mile or ten miles away? Of course biomass stoves are not "as reliably clean", but Prof. Smith uses that to simply curse biomass stoves. He is a fan of modern solutions, and so am I. But his dismissal of biomass stoves guarantees a fuel apartheid. *** </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font color="#38761d"></font><br>
This is VERY recent writing, so it is interpreted as Kirk Smith's
current positon about the Advanced Modern Clean Cooking Solutions
("MACCS") that include the Woodgas / Micro-gasifier stoves. <br>
<br>
I do not want a fight. I want Kirk Smith to openly and
enthusiastically acknowledge the current existence and the
increasing progress of VERY CLEAN burning biomass stoves. I have
recently written about the need for recognition of the clean
burning biomass stoves, with copies reaching Smith and Dean Still
and GACC leaders who will be speaking at the coming GACC Forum. <br>
<br>
Let's try to get this clarified beforehand so that we do not need to
force discussion in the question and answer times at the Forum
presentations. Tht conversation is on-going at the Stoves
Listserv. Please share this message with everyone.<br>
<br>
************ Now back to the discussion of Smith's chapter.
*************<br>
<br>
3. On page 5 of the .pdf file are these words relating to the
sources and abundance of LPG: <br>
".... will be used somewhere no matter what --- autos,
petrochemicals, or being flared, are the other main uses besides
households. Why not ustilize as much as possible to the highest
social value use --- cooking for the poor?" <br>
<br>
Responses: <br>
A. Do not flare it. That is pure waste.<br></div></blockquote><div><br><font color="#38761d">*** Depends on market size and finance for the infrastructure. And even then the markets may be elsewhere. For instance, Nigerian off-shore gas flaring is still going on and LNG is all exported - see <a href="http://leadership.ng/2017/10/04/quiet-gas-revolution-nigeria/">The Quiet Gas Revolution in Nigeria</a>. (Some West African gas is wet; there was a large study on West African LPG potential by WLPGA and the World Bank about 15 years ago. Flaring will continue as new associated gas fields are developed and some new refineries produce LPG that cannot be stored and transported. *** </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font color="#38761d"></font><br>
B. Use LPG for autos because biomass is nowhere close to being as
good for vehicle fuel. Unlimited demand for LPG as a vehicle fuel
if the vehicles are equipped for LPG. Distribution problems are
reduced because the vehicles go the the distribution stations.
But why might this not appeal? One reason is that LPG would then
compete with gasoline and diesel fuels, and that would be
competition WITHIN the interests of Big Oil. So, therefore, it is
more business if they direct LPG to the poor people.<br></div></blockquote><div><font color="#38761d"><br>*** India has CNG - Compressed Natural Gas - as well as LPG for urban passenger vehicles and buses. Competition among fuels is manipulated by taxes and price fixing. Companies only care for aggregate bottom line, not which fuels necessarily.***</font> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
C. LPG is NOT financially friendly to poor people. Yes, GIVE them
an LPG stove and full tank, and then expect them to forever make
payments for refills. Not a bad deal for the oil marketing
companies (OMCs), of which there are three big ones in India, with
the Government of India (GoI) owning more than 50% of each.<br></div></blockquote><div><font color="#38761d"><br>*** How is this different from electricity? ***</font> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
D. Sure the LPG and PNG are clean burning (the health arguement),
but so are the MACCS that include biogas and alcohol and solar and
electric and the "Woodgas from Biomass". And of those, the Woodgas
/ gasifiers can actually use locally grown biomass of many types,
precisely the same fuels that those poor families are currently
using in their smoky stoves that are causing indoor and outdoor
pollution. Solid biomass is not a dirty fuel. Fuels need to be in
the correct stoves where they are cleanly combusted.<br></div></blockquote><div><br><font color="#38761d">*** Among the working poor, time is of the essence.</font><font color="#38761d"> Small 5 kg LPG cylinders will likely fill a niche market, even as they continue using wood for other cooking. The so-called health argument is for the pundit class. Of course gas is clean, electricity is clean. </font><font color="#38761d">People with small budgets can't have all the health from a stove, as going to a doctor and hospital is getting costlier. Do not forget that for Prof. Smith's GBD computations, solid fuels including biomass are "dirty" by definition. Period. No variation by fuel quality or quantity, stove type, location. Everybody is given the same PM 2.5 concentration and a mark of DALY. There is no way Prof Smith can be consistent arguing that solid fuels are dirty by definition AND admit that they can be burnt clean enough. Just look up WHO "database" of exposures</font>. *** </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
4. On page 7 of the .pdf document, Smith comments regarding
getting the LPG into "...the poorest and remotest parts of the
country... where the density of connections is lower than
distributors have enjoyed up to now. Use of women's self-help
groups, rural cooperatives and other existing ogranizaitons will be
needed..." THAT comment is equally valid (or even more valid)
regarding the introduction of the CLEAN BURNING biomass stoves. And
in those areas, the biomass fuels are local, and do not require
trucks and then the manual carrying of metal LPG cylinders. <br>
<br>
5. On page 8, there is discussion of the government expenditure of
US$ 1.2 Billion for the PMUY programme for free LPG connections to
50 million households. "Indeed, it would seem that the programme
can soon claim to be a social investment, not a subsidy. Both come
from the taxpayer, but the former has a much different connotation
when focused on the poor."<br></div></blockquote><div><br><font color="#38761d">*** Connotation is in the eyes of the connotator. Food subsidy is a social investment. Irrigation subsidies are a social investment. Zero-carbon nuclear power plants are social investment. Prof Smith is just drooling in his praises for LPG. (I happen to agree with him too, just that I disagree with him about DALYs, aDALYs, and solid fuels being "dirty". ***</font> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
The same could be said if the stoves were the clean burning gasifier
stoves. No, stop, wait. it is not the same. The biomass
gasifiers can claim carbon credits and can actually PAY BACK the
investment, So the government might only be a guarantor of loans
that will be paid back to lenders such as the Asian Develpment
Bank. <br>
<br>
Please note that carbon credits with gasifier stoves are ALREADY
being earned in India (Deganga case study in West Bengal). Without
any money from the government (and therefore slower than it needs to
be.). Also, note that the gasifier stoves are in areas within
reach of the LPG distribution activities and the free LPG
equipment. The people will decide what they want to use.<br>
<br>
6. Finally, I am NOT against the LPG / PMUY programme. But I do
want recognition and appropriate support (organizational and
financial) for the expansion of the gasifier stove efforts in
India. Smith's chapter virtually ignores the viable alternative /
co-solution offered by the gasifier cookstoves. The issue is not
about starting the gasifier efforts. Efforts are already underway,
with proven results. The issue is to be supportive of the much
more rapid expansion of those gasifier stove efforts. <br></div></blockquote><div><font color="#38761d"><br>*** YES, but it will be an uphill battle. This Clean Cooking Forum has one question before it -- does GACC have a future, or is it its swan song for the last three years ahead? ***</font> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
May progress be made.<br></div></blockquote><div><font color="#38761d"><br>*** Hoping against hope, but in service of the poor and the neglected. They may well be dying not of PM2.5 but the depression caused by the drudgery of cooking. Give them a stove/fuel they love to use. Pleasing the cook is the ultimate benefit. ***</font> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="m_8210949455303647156moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_8210949455303647156moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" target="_blank" value="+13094527072">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="m_8210949455303647156moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a> <br>
<br>
<br></pre></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>