Transcript 2.+Riley+GACCLCEDN - Workspace

“Clean Cookstove Updates”
Imperial College London, June 2013
Paul H. Riley
Department of
Electrical And Electronic Engineering
Current cooking habits
3 Billion people cook on open fire
Photo courtesy Practical Action
Indian Sub continent
Sub Saharan Africa
Cambodia…. the World
Smoke inhalation causes many health problems. Wood burning is
only one source of smoke. Kerosene for lighting also contributes.
GACC

The Global Alliance for Clean Cook stoves
 Started by Hillary Clinton in 2010
 Aim to prevent the estimated 4 million people that die
prematurely from household smoke pollution
 amongst the 3 billion, mostly poor people that cook on an open
fire.
 Goal is for 200 million clean cookstoves to be installed by 2020.
 Grown from 19 partners in 2010 to 650 in March 2013
 Raised > $114M towards goal of $250M

GACC Cambodian conference [1] held at the Phnom Penh
Hotel was a major affair with around 600 people in
attendance from the world wide community.
 Although world-wide representatives present, very US centred.
(Only 2 from UK as far as I could tell)
The case for improvement



GACC highly influenced by the work of Professor
Kirk R. Smith, University of California, Berkeley.
Smith proposes using PM2.5 as the best single
indicator of household pollution.
Using the PM2.5 indicator (24 Hr mean)[2]
 14 Jan 2013. 316 μg/m3 in Delhi, 195 μg/m3 Rural India
 25 -30% of primary particle pollution from households
 In 2010, 41% of households cook with solid fuels

Typical wood fire = 400 cigarettes an hour!
Financial: World Bank perspective





Subramaniam V. Iyer, Director, Sustainable
Energy Department, The World Bank. [3]
“..how do we scale up the finance, the
entrepreneurship and the capacity to go from 1
million to 100 million to a billion?..”
“..solid fuel dependence is not going away.. the
number of people using solid fuel.. will.. increase
to 3.4 billion by 2020.
“.. The challenge is how to develop this market..”
“.. how do we foster innovation, best practice,
knowledge across communities, cities and
countries? ..”
Sources of Household Air Pollution


Many people at the conference assumed that
reducing cooking smoke will save many of the 4
million premature lives lost.
However:
 Early indications in NW India, and Kenya [4] are not
supportive of this view.
 Many people use old and clean cookstoves depending on
what they cook
 Cooking not the only source of HAP
 Smoke can be a disinfectant,
(hence can improve health under certain circumstance)
little work done in this area
 Social acceptance as important as the technology
Kerosene Lamp pollution
Tami Bond, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.pdf
Broader than GACC
Change is not easy.
Historical cooking situation
Homo Sapiens cooking is over 70,000 years old
“The earliest convincing evidence of fire use for
cooking appears at the 780,000-400,000 year
old late Homo erectus site at Zhoukoudian
near Beijing, China “ [5]
World Bank [5] 2011
“Research on improved cookstoves dates back to the 1950s;
the ensuing decades witnessed large-scale field programs
centered on increasing the efficiency of certain stove
designs. Over the past 30 years, the focus of the
international community has gradually shifted toward the
socio-cultural contexts in which the stoves operate. While
the stoves themselves may have been simple, their effects
on household and regional health and economics have
often been complex and far-reaching. In short, many
approaches to introducing improved stoves have been tried,
with some successes and many failures…”
“From 1980 until about 2002, hundreds or even thousands of
artisan-produced cookstove models were developed…”
Uptake in Rural Areas [6]
100%
Mobile Phones
Clean cookstoves
1950
8% outside China.[2]
2007 2013
Alone, clean cookstoves are boring.
Phones are wanted .. Why?
Uptake conclusion


May not be the design preventing uptake
Nor the funding
 See Probec work in Southern Africa [6], [7].

We must take cognisance of the social context and
the techno-social interactions
Social context

To improve health need to remove smoke
inhalation from stove and kerosene
 Used for lighting


How to make clean cookstoves more like
mobile phones?
To generate the want?
What are the :
 Inhibitors
 Motivators
Example of Inhibitors

If the still won’t fit
 No alcohol made
 Not accepted

Stove had hot spot
 One woman burnt hand
 Other 32 stoves were not used

Remove the smoke




Insects have a party
People get ill
Stove bring the demons
House eaten by termites
Conclusion:
If you remove the smoke, solve the associated problems
Improved Stoves inhibitors
http://www.research.philips.com/passwo
rd/download/password_28.pdf page 28
Wood collected too big for stove
http://www.biolitestove.com/
Broader based Inhibitors

At household level convince change is beneficial to the
 Male
 Female
 Children

Village
 Positive “grape vine” communication is essential
 Cooperative and village hierarchy have to be supportive
 Potential disadvantaged need addressing

Manufacturing logistics
 If it breaks, it will not get used..
 Unless it can easily be fixed

Country (government)
 Balance of payments
 Profit flows to benefit country not foreigners
 Reduction of corruption
Motivators
Adding packaged solutions although adding cost can make the
solution more affordable and generates the want.
Stoves that generate electricity are highly motivating
for all the family
Particularly lights and mobile phone charging
Technology options


There is little doubt that a reliable smoke-free
cooking stove that generates electricity, reduces
fuel consumption and is affordable, will sell in the
100’s millions and give great benefit.
What technologies can meet these requirements?






Erikson cycle
Stirling engine
Steam engine
Solar plus clean cooking stove
Thermo-Acoustic (eg Score-Stove™ [8])
Thermo-Electric (Thermopile)
Generating stove goals

Reduce
 Wood consumption
 Smoke inhalation

Improve
 Health
» Reduced cooking smoke, but with ability to disinfect with smoke
» improved understanding of modern medicine
» Preservation of prescription drugs (cooling)
 Education, by means of electricity
» light at night
» access to knowledge through mobile phone and computer
» Radio and TV
 Wealth
» Better education
» Access to improved farming methods and commodity prices
» Business opportunities (sales and maintenance, selling electricity)
More importantly this has the potential to significantly
increase affordability
Affordability

Cheapest solution is not the most affordable
 The right packaged solution makes it more attractive.

Stop using kerosene for lighting.
 Typical kerosene cost = £15 to £30 pa
 Torches etc. mean kerosene use > zero


Use of LED lights, low maintenance
Need easy-to-use way to monitor electricity
 So that carbon credits can be claimed.

Low cost entry point uses low capacity battery.
 Many devices (mobile phones) can be charged during
cooking

Total Package aimed at £100, with micro finance
Initiatives wider than GACC



GACC as an initiative only 3 years old
Heavy dependence on American research.
GIZ (German development agency)
 are probably the real technical leaders
 Were a large sponsor of the Cambodian event,
but kept low profile
 Are setting up a European arm of GACC


China has large successes in this area
What is our view on UK research in this area?
Conclusions





GACC is attracting very large funders.
Although, in my view, GACC is behind
the rest of the world in terms of
research, it is accelerating rapidly
Anyone not involved
likely to be left behind
Combination of low smoke, and
electrical generating has a much
better chance of success and if
affordable will improve health and wealth
UK research organisations have much to offer the GACC initiative
References
1.
2.
http://www.cleancooking2013.org/resources/proceedings/
9.
https://unfoundation.box.com/CleanCookingForum2013#/cleancookingforu
m2013/1/821023356/7610012246/1
https://unfoundation.box.com/CleanCookingForum2013#/cleancookingforu
m2013/1/821023356/7610010180/1
https://unfoundation.box.com/CleanCookingForum2013#/cleancookingforu
m2013/1/801621981
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_3.htm
https://unfoundation.box.com/CleanCookingForum2013#/cleancookingforu
m2013/1/821023798/7610080116/1
“Household Cookstoves Environment, Health, and Climate Change”
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/documents/Househ
old%20Cookstoves-web.pdf
http://www.probec.org
http://www.probec.org/fileuploads/fl10212007163006_ProBECinBrief.pdf
10.
www.score.uk.com
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Acknowledgments

Thanks to the EPSRC (The UK Science council)
Alstom
My Score colleagues
Practical Action

You for listening



Abstract
“Since its launch in 2010 by the then secretary of state Hillary Clinton,
The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC) has increased
from 10 to 650 world-wide organisations with the goal of
implementing 100 million clean cookstoves by 2020. This paper will
give highlights of GACC progress towards this goal from the
conference held in Cambodia in March 2013 as well as discussions
of the research challenges ahead. Estimates of premature deaths
due to household pollution have been revised upwards to 4 million
per year. However, early indications from North West India and
Kenya show that just distributing clean cookstoves is not having
the desired effect on health improvement. Social and other
interactions are thought to have a much greater influence on health
than the technical specification of the stove itself. With a larger
involvement in GACC, the UK research establishments could gain
more recognition for their work. Particularly understanding and
solving the underlying issues, which is currently mainly US research
centred. GIZ (the German development agency) are taking a
European lead in GACC with a proposed conference from the 26 to
29 June to be held in Bonn. “
Back pocket slides
Probec (GIZ initiative)


The Programme for Basic Energy and Conservation (ProBEC) aims to ensure that low-income population groups satisfy their energy
requirements in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner. It targets rural and urban households, as well as small business
and institutions using biomass energy (woodfuel, agricultural residues) for thermal processes.[2]
ProBEC was established in 1998 after inception missions to six SADC member countries marked the end of the orientation phase. The
first implementation phase took place between 1998 and 2001 and was co-financed by the European Union. The main activities
during this phase was the establishment of the national steering committees, regional workshops, and a series of demonstration
projects in Malawi, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Namibia, as well as the development of national biomass strategy in Namibia.


The second implementation phase was from 2002-2005. It was during this time, that Biomass Energy Conservation (BEC)
strategies were further developed and promoted at a national level. Importantly, the growth of future ProBEC activities took
place and specific BEC measures began to be promoted. This included the selection and adaptation of improved BEC technologies,
improved BEC options, training of BEC technology producers on technical and business skills and monitoring and evaluation of projects.
In addition BEC expertise in the region increased, including assessment of experiences through national and regional workshops,
exchanging and further development of expertise through training on project management and building knowledge and awareness of
HIV/AIDS and other important issues that significantly effect the socio-economic status of the people involved.


Concepts for the long-term promotion of BEC in the SADC region were developed, including the analysis of options for a sustainable
model for regional networking, organisational structures and infrastructure, and the preparation and organisation of ways and means
to secure sustainability of BEC interventions in the SADC region.


The expansion of ProBEC to include Tanzania and Zambia also took place in this time but was only completed in 2006. A separate
component was established and called the ProBEC SADC North, which included Malawi and the two new incorporated countries. The
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs co-funded this expansion and GTZ was commissioned to act as the implementation partner.


We are currently in the third implementation phase and it is in this phase that ProBEC has overhauled its deliverables and its approach.
This has dramatically broadened ProBEC's scope with regard to basic energy conservation, and has resulted in the increase of its
influence in the SADC region.




Vision
Lower income population groups satisfy their energy requirements in a socially and environmentally sustainable
manner.
Thus, quality of life of lower income population in selected SADC countries will be improved.
Mission Biomass energy related institutions and private sector in the SADC region have the expertise, resources and commitment to
ensure that affordable energy-efficient technologies and techniques are commercially available and widely used in the region.
Probec in brief [3]

Financing and implement-ing Agency
ProBEC Phase
II is financed by the Ministry of Economic Co-operation,
Germany, and implemented by the Deutsche Ge-sellschaft
fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German Technical
Cooperation)
 Past phases and achievements
Orientation phase
(1997-1998): Inception missions to 6 SADC coun-tries, national
workshops, development of proposal for implementation

1st Implementation Phase (1998-2001, co-financed by
EU): Set-up and functioning of national steering committees;
Realisation of regional workshops (planning, training,
information exchange/networking); dem-onstration projects
in full implementation in Malawi (2), Zimbabwe (2),
Mozambique and Namibia; demo-projects in preparation in
Lesotho and South Africa; Development of National Biomass
Energy Strategy in Namibia.
Probec 2010 [3]










84% of the schools were exclusively using rocket stoves when
cooking, while 16% were using both
rocket stoves and three‐stone fire. The three‐stone fire was used
for a number of reasons: in some
2010 Impact Assessment for Institutional Rocket stoves Malawi
11
schools, users claimed they did not have enough stoves and so
resorted to using the three‐stone fire so
that they can cook enough food. In some schools, the users said
that they use the three‐stone fire on
days when wood is wet because such wood does not burn well in
the stoves while the fire dries it out.
Only one school, in Zomba district, people use the three‐stone fire
instead of the IRS because they do
not want to carry the stove to and from the kitchen, due to its
heavy weight, even though the store
room is less than ten meters from the kitchen.
Probec [3]
















Table 1: Advantages of institutional rocket stoves
ADVANTAGES OF ROCKET STOVES
ACCORDING TO USERS
RESPONSE
Yes No
1. Fuel saving 49 1
2. Clean Kitchen 21 29
3. Cook fast (saves time) 38 12
4. Less smoke 42 8
5. Less burns, accidents 35 15
6. Better taste of food 32 18
7. Less respiratory and eye
disease
26 24
8. More comfort 37 13
9. Saves money 3 47