Post on 19-Jul-2020
transcript
+
From Clean
Stoves/Fuels to Clean
Cooking Systems
Omar MaseraBioenergy and Ecotechnology Innovation Group
IIES- UNAM
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Grupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnologia Rural Apropiada
MEXICO
Cluster Biocombustibles
Solidos
Household
Energy?
Mexican Center for Bionergy Innovation
Cluster on Solid Biofuels
3Cookstove Testing and Innovation Laboratory
◼ Cookstove Testing and Certification.
GACC RTKC Lab.
◼ Cookstove Innovation – CFD,
microgasification
◼ Development of lab and field testing
protocols
◼ Impact Evaluation (Emissions Testing, IAP
Modeling)0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
CO
(p
pm
)
CO
2 (
pp
m)
minutes elapsed
CO2 and CO Emissions During Test CO2
bkgx
bkgco2
hotco2
CO
simmer
CFD
Stacking and the Need for
Integrated Cookstove Programs
◼ Mounting evidence showing that a single stove/fuel is usually a
sub-optimal alternative to traditional fires
◼ People stack traditional and new devices leading to reduced
benefits (e.g. LPG programs in rural settings worldwide)
◼ Paradigm shift → From promoting “single devices” to integrated
cooktove implementation programs
◼ Including improved practices (moving the open fire outside, drying
wood, use of pressure cooker), clean devices (including non-cooking
uses such as space and water heating) and fuels
◼ Identifying and Promoting “healthy” stacking options
◼ Clean woodburning stoves cannot be left behind!!
The case for clean chimney stoves
◼ Clean chimney stoves (e.g. Plancha-type stoves) are widely used and accepted in Latin America and other regions
◼ Have been dismissed as “polluting” w/o strong evidence
◼ HOWEVER….
◼ Field experience from successful stove programs show dramatic changes in local people living conditions
◼ Previous Lab testing and modeling results show that WHO IT1 could be achieved by these stoves (they vent 95% of smofke OUT of the kitchen)
◼ As stacking occurs we need to understand the implications of alternative stove/fuel configurations
10 yr Patsari Stove User
“Understanding the HAP impacts of alternative stove, fuel
and cooking practices stacking patterns”
Grupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnologia Rural Apropiada (GIRA)
National Autonomous University of Mexico (IIES-UNAM)
Michoacan, Mexico
University of California Riverside, USA
University of California Irvine, USA
giragrupo interdisciplinario
de tecnología ruralapropiada
ISN-NIHs Funded Project
+Objectives/ Research Questions
◼ What are the HAP (PM2.5 and CO) implications of
alternative stacking patterns of
fuel/device/cooking practices?
◼ Which of them comply with WHO IT1 levels?
◼ Improve the modeling of IAP (kitchen/area
concentrations)
◼ From the Single Box IAP Model to CFD modelling
◼ Train Latin American experts in the use of the
models and testing protocols
+ Methods
Main cooking practices:
1. Make tortillas
2. Reheat tortillas
3. Boil beans
4. Heat beverages
5/6. Fried meals (rice, eggs and beans)
Ruiz-Mercado y Masera., 2015These tasks are tipically
arranged in a cooking
sequence called
“COOKING CYCLE”
(Johnson et a., 2010,
Medina et al. 2017)
).
Cooking tasks/cyclesA data base of 255 households from 4
villages was analyzed and 6 primary cooking
tasks were identified
Simulated kitchen and Equipment setting
Cooking tasks and field research team
CBC Reheat Tortillas Stacking
Cooking
practice Patsari TSF* LPG Patsari TSF* LPG LPG
Patsari-
TSF*Patsari-
LPG
LPG-
TSF*
Patsari-LPG-
TSF*
1. Tortillasa a - - - - a
Patsari
Patsari TSF Patsari
2. Fried eggs
and beans
a a a - - - - LPG LPG LPG
3. Fried ricea a a - - - - Patsari TSF Patsari
4. Boil 1 L of
watera a a - - - - LPG LPG LPG
5. Boil beansa a a - - - - TSF Patsari TSF TSF
6. Reheat
tortillas and
meals
- - - a a a - Patsari LPG LPG LPG
N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
IAP samplers 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
CBC: controlled burning cycle; for each test, 3 devices take IAP levels in different
locations within the kitchen
Cooking tests conducted in the simulated Kitchen
Methods
Prel. Results – Stacking of Stoves by Cooking
Practice
87% 84%
56%
68% 72%
3% 3%
34%
16% 15%
8% 9% 6% 6% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1. Tortillas 2. Reheat
meals
3. Boil beans 4. Heat water
for beverage
5. Fried meals
Patsari-TSF, Average N=92, 2005-2012
Patsari TSF Both
65%
27%
79%
18%
39%
0%
33%
8%
42%
20%
26%32%
8%
35% 39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1. Tortillas 2. Reheat
meals
3. Boil beans 4. Heat water
for beverage
5. Fried meals
TSF-GLP, Average N=8, 2005-2012
TSF GLP Both
Patsari, full
U-type, full
LPG, full
Patsari Reheat
U-type Reheat
LPG Reheat
LPG Tortillas
Patsari-LPG, full
Interim target-1
35 μg/m3 PM₂.₅
7 mg/m3 CO
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Carb
on
Mo
no
xid
eC
O [
mg
/m3]
Particulate Matter PM₂.₅ [μg/m3] 24h Concentrations
U-type LPG full
Preliminary Results
IAP level by Type of Stacking
Notes: U-type is an open fire; “full” means Cooking Cycle
Under current stacking
No gains from LPG
Clean Stacking is
possible
+ Concluding Remarks
▪ Regional stove stacking is prevalent. Stacking of stoves followdefinite patterns according to cooking practices and thenumber of stoves available
▪ LPG is used mostly for re-heating and fast tasks
▪ Patsari for making tortillas and other fuel consuming tasks
▪ Open fires for making traditional foods and non-cooking tasks
▪ Current stacking patterns of open fires and LPG lead to highIAP levels (not different from using open fires alone)
▪ Both Patsari and LPG stoves either used alone or combinedmeet the WHO guidelines for both PM2.5 and CO for CBC &Reheat tasks.
▪ Only if open fires are used for fast tasks (like re-heating food)IAP levels drop to WHO IT1
+ Coming Cookstove Meetings!
LATIN AMERICAN COOKSTOVE FORUM
HONDURAS 12-14 MARCH 2019
The Pathw ays to Clean Cooking 2050: Leaving No-one Behind conference w ill exp lore
recent advances and p robe cont inuing challenges. It p roposes to focus at tent ion on
reaching the furthest beh ind fi rst , w ith top ics such as:
• Households and set t ing s
• Evaluat ing pathw ays to m odern , sustainab le cooking energy system s
• Im pact-based fi nance for cleaner cooking
• Modern , clean , sustainab le b io-energy in a low -incom e count ry context
• Policy op t ions for a just t ransit ion to m odern , sustainab le cooking energ y system s
• Transit ional and hybrid m ult ip le fuel-device cooking system s
For m ore in form at ion or to subm it an abst ract , visit :
w w w.pathw ays2cleancooking.info
• 2.8 billion peop le rely on solid fuels (w ood , dung , crop w astes, charcoal, coal, etc.) and
t rad it ional fi res or sim p le stoves for cooking and heat ing .
• 1.2 billion peop le light t heir hom es w ith kerosene lam ps and cand les, causing expo-
sure to h igh levels of household air p ollu t ion and negat ive health im pact s, w ith w om en
and ch ildren d isp roport ionately af fected .
• Em issions from biom ass fuels cont ribu te to 2-8% of anthropogenic clim ate im pact s,
includ ing 20 -30% of b lack carbon em issions
• In m any populat ion -dense set t ings, use of fuelw ood is a m ajor d river of deforestation
and forest degradation.
W ith on ly 10 years lef t to reach Sustainab le Developm ent Goal 7, w hich calls for ensur-
ing “access to af fordab le, reliab le, sustainab le and m odern energy for all”, includ ing
un iversal access to clean cooking , an est im ated t w o b illion p eop le are in danger of b e-
ing lef t b ehind .
Pathw ays to Clean Cooking 2050 : Leaving No-one Behind
In ternat ional Conference: 30 -31 May, 2019, Wexford , Ireland
© Marilyn Smith
+ Broadening perspectives…
from fuels/cookstoves
to energy services, kitchens, and
households
Thank you
omasera@gmail.com
giragrupo interdisciplinario
de tecnología ruralapropiada
+Publications
◼ Johnson M, Edwards R, Berrueta V, Masera O. New approaches toperformance testing of improved cookstoves. Environ Sci Technol2010;44(1):368–74.
◼ Medina, P., Berrueta V., Martínez, M., Ruíz, V., Ruíz-Mercado, I.,Masera, O. 2017 “Closing the gap between lab and field cookstovetests: Benefits of multi-pot and sequencing cooking tasks throughcontrolled burning cycles”. Energy for Sustainable Development. 41:106-111
◼ Ruiz-García V. M., Edwards R. D., Ghasemian M., Berrueta V. M.,Princevac M., Vázquez J. C., Johnson M., Masera O. R., “FugitiveEmissions and Health Implications of Plancha-Type Stoves”,Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 10848−10855.
◼ Ruiz-Mercado I and Masera O 2015 Patterns of stove use in thecontext of fuel: device stacking: rationale and implicationsEcoHealth 12 42–56
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Fre
qu
en
cy
(%
of
sim
ula
tio
ns
)
PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m3)
Chimney-Stoves tested in Lab ONILEcostufa Mera-MeraPatsari LPGWHO AQG Annual concentration PM2.5, IT-1 (35 µg/m3) WHO AQG Annual concentration PM2.5, (10 µg/m3)ONIL, geometric mean Ecostufa, geometric meanMera-Mera, geometric mean Patsari, geometric meanLPG, geometric mean Chimney-Stoves tested in Lab, geometric mean
IT1
AQG
Indoor Air Pollution Levels Associated
to Mexican Woodburning Chimney
Stoves
Values obtained using the Single-Zone WHO Box Model, direct
measurements of stove fugitive emissions and local kitchen parameters
Current Approaches to Clean Cooking still centered
in finding the ”silver bullet” (either a fuel or device)
◼ LPG is the new “winner”
◼ Large programs launched in India/Africa
◼ Big push from public health institutions/oil industry/governments
◼ Huge subsidies to make LPG accessible are advocated (the opposite to ICS)
◼ Still no evidence from sustained exclusive use outside large cities
◼ Improved Woodburning Cookstoves heavily criticized
◼ Bad publicity on the news (BBC, Science..), in many cases from poorly designed
studies (e.g. Kenya, Malawi …)
◼ Market approaches are promoted (GACC) giving preference to large-scale
manufacturing,
◼ Limited participation of local users in developing solutions to their problems
◼ Most programs are supply-oriented rather than results oriented, particularly at
government level (buy votes! From ICS to LPG –check Indian program)
◼ Limited financing (from R&D to implementation/monitoring) in the biomass
sector
◼ Advanced biomass stoves still need to improve performance, particularly at
start-up/end
We need to move from fuels and cookstoves
to cooking systems …
Technical Performance
(Lab tests→ Emission
Factors; Effic); Cost
Landscape Effects
(Non-Renewable
Biomass)
Actual HH GHG
Emissions
& Exposure
Adoption
Sustained use
Compatibility with
traditional practices and culture
Comparative Advantages
with competing devices
Synergies with other uses
Access Constraints
(price, availability fuel)
Fuel
Defining the
problem
+From what we hope will happen at
large…
To understand actual stove adoption
and use patterns….
Rejection/Abandonment; Stacking/Poor Maintenance; Persistence of Open Fires
Users´s adaptations/ integrated water heater/integrated LPG-biomass stove
Transformation Pathways
to Clean Cooking
◼From determining “adoption” factors to
understanding context-based processes and users
needs
◼ At a minimum, understanding the needs that traditional
fires satisfy!
◼From “selling/installing clean stoves” to promoting
their sustained use and the displacement of
traditional fires
◼ Focus on program results, including funding for M&E
activities, user-centered innovation
+
◼ From “clean cooking” to “access to clean energy
services” (including water and space heating,
etc)
◼ From promoting “single devices” to integrated
portfolios of options
◼ These should include improved practices (moving the
open fire outside, drying wood, use of pressure
cooker), devices (including those to cope with
residual use of open fires, such as water heating) and
fuels See Ruiz-Mercado and Masera, 2015 for a
more complete list of issues
Transformation Pathways
to Clean Cooking