<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.gmail-m2770822261814031793hoenzb
{mso-style-name:gmail-m_2770822261814031793hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@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="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Nikhil<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US">></span></b>Setting "international standards" for PM2.5 in mg per MJd is a waste of time. . <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Here we disagree. Again. I found this metric to be useful for setting procurement requirements for the Ulaanbaatar City Clean Air Project (UB-CAP) because it can be related to a
<i>proportional</i> decrease in emissions from small domestic stoves eligible for a subsidy. The baseline performance replicating a typical ignition and refueling sequence was 680 mg/MJ delivered into the home. The project was planning initially (2007) to
require any stove to reduce this by 30% with a funding of $15m available.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Initial testing of candidate stoves was depressing. The majority of ‘improved stoves’ merely increased the thermal efficiency by a small amount, but the combustion was no better, sometimes worse (as much as
double the emissions). Clearly we needed to shift gears on the technology employed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">For some time we tried downdraft stoves which were dramatically cleaner – certainly in the 90% range or better. A singular advantage of the DD stoves was they could burn the crummy ‘semi-coke’ briquettes that
everyone kept throwing at the problem. Emissions from these SCB’s in a traditional were frequently worse (up to 35%) than the traditional stove burning raw coal because they were so difficult to ignite and refuel.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">With the appearance of TLUD stoves available in bulk, things changed. There was no need to develop local production capacity in the short term but we needed a performance target suited to the task at hand, which
was a reduction in total emissions. The fuel consumption metric was previously thought to be appropriate because it was assumed (incorrectly) that the emissions were inherent to the fuel – many people taught this as catechism, particularly the Europeans. The
appropriate metric was mg PM<sub>2.5</sub>/MJ delivered into the home. This considered thermal efficiency and emissions per unit mass burned in a single number.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">The target was set at an 80% reduction, far above the initial 30% target. The emission target set was 140 mg/MJ using a contextual test sequence based on observed behaviour. After one year it became clear from
testing at the local lab that 90% could easily be achieved, meeting what was then Kirk Smith’s universal reduction target necessary to provide a “significant public health benefit”. The following year the requirement was raised to 90% with <70 mg/MJ the magic
number. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">The development of stoves assessed on this basis continued locally with the GTZ7.1 crossdraft and two of the Turkish “Silver” TLUD’s achieving consistent performance below 1.0 mg/MJ. When Kirk wrote a report
a couple of years ago to the Minister of the Environment saying that only a new miracle technology that might achieve a 95% reduction could briefly stem the rise in pollution, the stoves already being supported were reducing 98% or better and the city air
quality had improved up to 65% (depending on where you lived). In spite of consistent, multiple proofs through the years 2011-2017 that the cleanest burning of all stoves used raw coal, Kirk and others are still trying to sell the line that only a total ban
on burning raw coal can clean up the air. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">In the Hebei Clean Air Project, the target is <40 mg/MJ<sub>NET</sub> and we had no problem finding stoves to meet that target, all produced within the province. I have recently seen a stove designed in Langfang
that will consistently be under 1.0 mg/MJ, I am sure of it. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Within 5 years I predict that the project (if not national) requirement will be <5 mg/MJ which is less than a tenth of the forthcoming EPA target for 2021 for heating stoves. This will represent, for Ulaanbaatar
and Chinese cities, a reduction of something >99% and this can be achieved <i>without changing the fuel</i>. As you can imagine, this creates some hand-wringing in certain quarters among those who had their eye on large subsidies for their favourite toys.
Some people’s worst nightmare is a super-clean coal or biomass-burning stove. Odd, isn’t it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I believe the metric mg/MJ delivered is an appropriate performance metric, assuming all the stove functions required by users can be maintained.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Crispin<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>