<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Nikhil and list:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Besides the following responses, the front page feature article today in the Denver Post concentrates on health aspects of forest fires - one scientist saying their emissions are probably more hazardous to health than coal-fired power plants (in this country). This from the just concluded AGU conference, I’d like your reaction to this piece written by science writer Chris Mooney (originally printed one day earlier in the Washington Post. The article is at: <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/15/wildfire-smoke-deadly-csu-researchers-say/" class="">http://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/15/wildfire-smoke-deadly-csu-researchers-say/</a></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>There are four scientists quoted here on the relationship between smoke and health; why should we believe you and not them?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bit more below</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" class="">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Ron:<br class=""><br class="">Thank you so much. I will read that paper. I don’t have any opinion on health rationales <b class="">[RWL: Huh? No opinions?</b></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">because what is usually strewn around as “burden of disease" has no basis in theory or facts. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: And the thousands of paper supporting BOD have <u class="">no</u> “theory or facts”? You must have stopped looking.</b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Why are you so paranoid about criticism of WBT though? WBT is for lab testing of efficiency and emission rates, with a fixed fuel type and energy content, and actual emission rates can differ. It would be no different with other lab test methods; lab is meant to be a controlled environment and an abstraction from reality.</div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: I’m sure I have said this numerous times. </b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1. I am strongly driven by concern over climate change.</b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2. We must take carbon out of the atmosphere - very quickly. Wind and solar are not enough, even if 100% overnight.</b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3. The best means I have found for CDR is biochar (based on social acceptance and economics - exemplified by Julien Winter’s report from Bangladesh - re improved NPP)</b></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">4. The lowest cost biochar I have found is via char-making stoves (today - could change). This char/stove </b><b class="">stove connection is </b><b class="">not limited to TLUDs - thinking also Nat Mulcahy and possibly Norbert Senf.</b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>5. The best way I have seen to promote char-making stoves using major funding groups (mainly health oriented) is through the well established and accepted system of Tiers</b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>6. The Tier system today relies on the WBT.</b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>7. Char-making stoves excel at the WBT (which is not “an abstraction from reality” - the results are reproducible.)</b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><br class=""></b></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""> <br class=""><br class="">I brought in "protocols" because just as there stove testing methods for supposed "performance metrics" (scrupulously eliminating the cook and the cooking method, so as to promote expert control in support of expert theories), there are also different methods and equipment for measuring pollution concentrations. <br class=""><br class="">If I am not mistaken, this is what Graham Ballard-Tremeer did his PhD thesis on, circa 1998 at the Uni of Wittwatersrand. It was quite a revelation to me that reported indoor air pollution measurements came from use of different protocols or no protocols at all.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: I’d like to see a cite on that (look for Grant not Graham). I just skimmed through his paper from 2000: <a href="http://www.hedon.info/docs/IAP_interventions.pdf" class="">http://www.hedon.info/docs/IAP_interventions.pdf</a> , which makes a strong case on the need for stove improvements for health reasons.</b></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Kirk Smith also wrote something similar in 1999 - how few actual measurements had been and not comparable over time and across location. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: Dr. Smith supports the WBT. I believe also Tiers.</b><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">Most recently, as I may have noted elsewhere today, I discovered that only one study has measured emission rates for a particular stove using different fuels and that all other multi-fuel tests have been with the three-stone fire. (I can’t imagine how anybody can simulate a three-stone fire, which has survived over millennia simply because it is so fuel-flexible and versatile.) <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: I know of one on different fuels and will be reporting on it - using a TLUD. What is your study? The three stone fire measurements provide the definition of the lowest tier. One doesn’t simulate the 3-stone fire - one builds one in the lab. Yes the three-stone fire has virtues, but not on efficiency and emission metrics (and especially being able to make money while using.)</b><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">You may have noticed that it's not the WBT I don't care for - hadn't, in 1983, and see no reason to change my view - but the metrics. They are meant to rationalize expert research grants. Academia is a different world from that of budgeting and policy decisions. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: The metrics look fine to me. Which don’t you like? In my experience, budgeting and policy decisions rely heavily on academia.</b><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">Could the Washington University researcher on seeds Bedigian by any chance? Jatropha seeds have been mentioned as a fuel option - I think direct burning as well as esterification. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: You can make money today using these seeds in a TLUD - just the right size and shape, I believe. A.nyone tried them? (Their poisonous character needs testing. But there are plenty of seed types around</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class="">Ron<br class=""></b><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class=""><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><font face="georgia, serif" class=""> <br class=""></font>Nikhil</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 class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank" class="">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Nikhil and list:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The (non-fee) paper is at <a href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-13721-2017.pdf" target="_blank" class="">https://www.atmos-chem-<wbr class="">phys.net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-<wbr class="">13721-2017.pdf</a> </div><div class=""><span class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The supplement at <a href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-13721-2017-supplement.pdf" target="_blank" class="">https://www.atmos-chem-phys.<wbr class="">net/17/13721/2017/acp-17-<wbr class="">13721-2017-supplement.pdf</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Looks like a credible paper - but not one I am going to read carefully as it is only related to traditional chulas. Seems to have a somewhat different means of monitoring the pollutants - in the field. I doubt one can use this paper to downgrade the WBT.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I am going to guess you won’t like the paper as it is full of health rationales (for India).</div><div class=""><span class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><div class=""><span class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Re repeatability, I am working up more on fuel shape, which is a main feature of the L’Orange et al paper. Fuel shape also not covered in the TLUD paper I noted with the 10% efficiency that Crispin has since commented on.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Twenty years ago we had some fine comments from a Professor at Washington University - who (I vaguely recall) was interested in some seeds that performed well for cooking because of their high oil content - that had no other use, because they were poisonous.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ron</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="h5"><div class="">On Dec 16, 2017, at 9:01 AM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_1951825311752651923Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><table style="font-family:Arial;border-collapse:collapse;border-left:1px solid rgb(228,228,228);border-right:1px solid rgb(228,228,228)" class=""><tbody class=""><tr class=""><td style="font-family:Arial;padding:18px 0px 12px;vertical-align:top" class=""><span style="padding:0px 6px 0px 0px" class=""><a href="http://indiacsr.in/on-the-ground-research-reveals-true-impact-of-cook-stove-emissions-in-india/" target="_blank" class="">On-the-ground research reveals true impact of <b class="">cook-stove</b> emissions in India</a>. India CSR Network blog, 15 December 2017</span></td></tr></tbody></table><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px" class=""><div class=""><div class="m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><font face="georgia, serif" class=""> </font> "We conducted real-life cookstove tests and burned a wide variety of biofuels, cooked different meals in a number of varying ventilation situations, then <u class="">recorded the resulting emission levels</u> using high-tech particle measurement devices.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class=""><div class="m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class=""><div class="m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="">Once the data was crunched back in St. Louis, the results were startling: In some cases, <u class="">more than twice the emission levels were detected when compared to the previous lab findings</u>, revising what people thought they knew for decades about this pervasive and dangerous problem."</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><div class="m_1951825311752651923gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class="">I wonder what protocols and fuels were used, and also whether they only measured emissions but also concentrations and tried to model the two. <br class=""><br class="">Or whether the alleged "previous lab findings" are comparable or this research team is just boasting. <br class=""><br class="">I hope the revisions are not as shoddy as the history. What people thought they knew was what they chose to or were instructed to believe. <br class=""><br class="">Related press release at <a href="https://source.wustl.edu/2017/08/engineers-work-fight-pollution-home-globally/" target="_blank" class="">Engineers work to fight pollution at home, globally</a>, Erika Ebsworth-Goold August 11, 2017. Haven't yet located the full paper. <br class=""><br class="">Nikhil </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>