PilotPhase Final June 13

8/11/2019 PilotPhase Final June 13

1/42

Baseline Data

outdoor : 10-2009 to 06-2011

Indoor : 11-2009 to 10-2010

Technology Testing : 06-2010 to 07-2010

Deployment of Forced

Draft Stoves : 02-2010 to 06-2010

PILOT PHASE(10-2009 to Present )


2/42

10 km10 km

Pilot Phase

Experiment Concept


3/42

Village Center Observatory

Traffic-Sample site

NASA-

AERONET

SURYA

MISR

MODIS


4/42


5/42

A Grand Climate and Health Intervention Experiment

Techno logy assessm ent, dissem inat ion and

documentat ion of emission reduct ion in the pi lot phase

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi, India


6/42

Cooking technology options

LPG

Biogas

Kerosene Stove

Biomass based

Improved Cook stove

Biomass based Mud Stove


7/42

Focus: Biomass based IC Even in 2030, 632 million people in

India will depend on biomass for

energy

In-situ production and consumption

No expensive LPG like supply

chains

Natural Draft

Mostly single burner

Enhanced free convection- grates,

design

Mostly gasification through air pores

Price: 1100-2500

Forced draft

Only single burner

Air forcedinto stove chamber using fan

SMF battery power pack,

Gasification

Top loading- Processed Fuel, Pellets, rice:$60-80

Model/parameter

Thermalefficiency (%-age)

Reduction inPM2.5(%-age)

Reduction in CO(%-age)

Reduction inBlackCarbon (%-age)

Naturaldraft

20 - 28 20-39 26-34 22-55

Forceddraft

30-40 42-55 31-48 49-85Strengths

10%25% increase in thermal efficiency

PM 2.5 emissions reduction by a factor of 2-4

Weakness

Field Vs Lab: Performance differential None of the commercial stoves meet WHO stipulated

PM2.5 levels


8/42

Mud StoveImproved Cookstove

Transition

Baselinemonitoring

Testing Development and

customization

Stovedissemination,

capacity building

Postdissemination

monitoring

Surya dovetailed an ongoing TERI DST

Project which

Tested 11 cookstove models

Established the advantages of

Forced Draft Stoves

Reduced cost by 40%

Surya dovetailed an ongoing TERI DST

Project which

Identified and trained village

volunteers

Optimized the right mix of fuels for

production of pellets

Facilitated the setting up of

entrepreneurship based pelletization

and stove dissemination

Surya


9/42

Energy for a Sustainable Future the Secretary-Generals Advisory Group On Energy And Climate Change (AGECC) Summary Report And Recommendations, 28 April 2010, New York

Desired Outputs Resources needed

(RN)

Activities

undertaken tilldate

Contribution of activities

undertaken to outputs

Resources

mobilized and

spent

(RM& S)

Additional

resources required

(ARR)

Technology

Identification of

appropriate

technology options

for meeting cooking

energy needs

Customized forced

draft stove-single

pot

Customized forced

draft stove- two pot

Dissemination of 10

000 forced draft

stoves

Pilot testing of

different cook stoves

models in the Lab

Pilot testing of

different cook stoves

in the field

Comparative

assessment of biomass

stove technologies

focusing both on

emission and thermalefficiency

characteristics

Dissemination of close

to 500 forced draft

stoves

In forced draft stoves emission

reduction ranges 60-80%

For Natural draft stoves it is

substantially less

Thermal efficiency and fuel savings

are much higher in forced draft

stoves

Surya-Pilot phase


10/42

Baseline monitoring : Cooking a major

source of high BC Concentrations

B li i i BC I d


11/42

Baseline monitoring : BC Indoor

concentrations drive outdoor

concentrations


12/42

TERI Stove development under DST

Project

Patented Model

Cost- 2000

50% lesser price than comparable

commercial model

Dual Charging facility- Grid+ Solar

Separate Power pack

Dissemination to 50 households


13/42

Problems with existing single pot models

Requirement of processed wood-

Expensive pellets , Manual chopping

Men non inclined, Physically stressful for women

Continuous feeding

Single pot stove- insufficient for big family

Traditional Roti baking

Fuel incompatibility- inability to use non monetized

biomass

Hence development of a twin pot forced draft model

TERI Stove development under DST

(Indian Government) Project


14/42

Surya : Stove dissemination and

capacity building

Close to 500 stoves

village saturation

Another 500 stoves under

the DST project

Full Subsidy

Partial Subsidy

Full Cost

Training and awareness

campaign


15/42

Forced draft better than natural draft


16/42

Conclusions

Forced draft

stoves reduce

BCconcentrations

by 70%-80%

Cooking with

solid biomass

fuels-majorsource of BC

over IGP

Peak values -early morning

and evening

hours 100 g

m-3 are a factorof 5 to 20 times

larger than day

time values

Fossil fuel

combustion has

significantinfluence on BC

conc.

Reduction in

short lived

pollutants by

introduction of

efficienttechnologies


17/42


Wireless Sys tem fo r High Spatial Reso lut ion Data

Col lect ion

N. RamanathanUCLA & NexLeaf

Monitoring Stove BC Emissions Using Mobile Phones


18/42

18

Monitoring Stove BC Emissions Using Mobile Phones

Filter, placed onreference template

25 mm

Results sentback via SMS

Picture sentto server

Micro-Pump and Filter

N Ramanathan, et al,

Atm Environment,2011

Innovations

$500 per unit, ultra lowpower.

Low-tech: works with anycamera cellphone.

Real-time reporting.

Deployment in India for Surya Pilot Phase


19/42

Deployment in India for Surya Pilot Phase

Validation with four independent gold standard instruments: Error < 10%


20/42

20

Validation with four independent gold standard instruments: Error < 10%

Cookstove samples collected inIndia, urabn samples in California(n=80), comparison with Thermal-optical and Aethalometer

Cookstove samples collected bythe EPA (n=600), comparison withThermal-optical reflectance andtransmittance methods.

Global BC Monitoring Network Using Mobile Phones


21/42

Global BC Monitoring Network Using Mobile Phones

Will deploy 500 - 1000 cellphones in Surya Demonstration phase tobetter understand spatial variability of BC

Use this data in conjunction with fine-resolution aerosol models(Prof. Carmichael), to compute BC emissions, and improveuncertainty in emissions inventories.


22/42


Department of Environmental Health Engineering

Center for Advanced Research on Environmental Health, (ICMR, Govt. of India)

World Health Organisation Collaborating Center for Occupational Health

Sri Ramachandra University

Chennai, India

Exposure Implications for Health Impacts from InterventionsResults from Preliminary Comparative Assessments of

Improved and Traditional Biomass Cook Stoves in India

K. Balakrishnan


23/42

Large base of information on concentrations/exposuresin solid fuel using households in India, but primarily

from traditional (mud) stove users

Previous intervention efforts have been directed at

distribution of Improved Cook Stoves, without explicit

exposure benchmarks for defining improvement

Multiple market based models now being purchased by

households

Few efforts to compare improvements as compared to

traditional cook-stoves and across multiple improved

stoves

BACKGROUND


24/42

Study design (Paired comparisons)

ICS1FRC

ICS 2FRC

ICS3FRC

ICS 4FRC

ICS 5FC

ICS 6FOFC

Indoor Kitchens Using Wood (72 HH; 2 states)

6 sub-groups ; 12 HH in each sub-group

24 hr PM 2.5, CO; HH Questionnaire

24 hr PM 2.5, CO (Similar meal); HH Questionnaire

6 models of ICS distributed with training (1-2 months)

10% HHs sampled 6 months after ICS provision

HH-Household ; TC-Traditional cook stove; ICS- Improved Cook-stove; FRC-Free convection ;

FC-Forced convection; FOFC : Fuel optimized forced convection


25/42


26/42

Distribution of 24 hr kitchen concentrations

TC-Traditional cook stove; FRC-Free convection cook stove;

FC-Forced convection; FOFC : Fuel optimized forced convection


27/42

Comparisons of levels before

and afterPM2.5(g/m3)

Stove Type Levels N Median IQR % Difference p(Wilcox)

TotalBase 65 300 533

46.33 0.002Post 68 161 261

Free ConvectionBase 44 329 524.5

43.16 0.009Post 47 187 257.5

Forced Convection and Optimised fuel Base 10 142.5 231.25 25.96 0.770Post 10 105.5 158.5

Forced ConvectionBase 11 302 1347.5

67.22 0.032Post 11 99 139.5

CO(ppm)Stove Type Levels N Median IQR % Difference p-value(Wilcox)

TotalBase 66 5.88 8.70

42.25 0.0001

Post 68 3.40 5.69

Free ConvectionBase 45 6.63 9.10

41.93 0.004Post 47 3.85 5.73

Forced Convection and Optimised fuelBase 10 2.79 5.36

13.37 0.193Post 10 2.42 2.10

Forced ConvectionBase 11 6.12 9.41

78.46 0.007Post 11 1.32 3.89


28/42

Summary

Both free and forced convection models showed significant reductions

as compared to traditional cook-stoves (ranging between 43- 67%) for

both PM 2.5 and CO.

Our sample could not distinguish across improved stove models; detect

a significant difference with the fuel optimized free convection model;

or detect differences across states

The lowest concentrations measured were however still much higher

than the recommended WHO air quality guideline values for PM 2.5

(WHO AQG, Global Update 2005)

Several HH determinants would need to be addressed for longitudinal

exposure reconstructions in ICS studies

Stove use/number of meals (frequency) /cooking duration (length)

Stove location, change in fuel, ventilation (magnitude)

Other sources of exposure (confounding)

Role of ambient concentrations would need to be defined


29/42

Integrated matrices for emissions, exposures and stove use:

Implications for sustainability

TC

FRC

FOFC ?

Exposures

Emissions

Easeofuse

FC

TC-Traditional cook stove; FRC-Free convection cook stove; FC-Forced convection; FOFC : Fuel optimized forced convectionNote: The chosen guideline is arbitrary on this scale as are the relative positions of the stoves. It is shown to merely illustrate the need to

integrate multiple inputs for choosing a technology to confer a required degree of exposure reduction

Guideline (Choice)

Guideline (Choice)


30/42

A Grand Climate and Health Intervention ExperimentClimate Change Science

V. Ramanathan

On behalf o f the Climate Change Team


31/42

Diurnal variation of seasonal mean BC concentration at SVI_1 village centre(VC).

Seasonal and Diurnal Variation in BC Concentrations: Surya Village Center


32/42

Diurnal variation of seasonal mean BC concentration at SVI_1 village centre(VC).

Seasonal Variation in BC Concentrations: Comparison with Climate Models

Simulated

Ganguly et

A l, 2010

Simulated

Menon et al, 2010


33/42

Monthly mean LIDAR extinction profiles (532 nm) from CALIPSO for the grid (2627Nand 8082E) for post-monsoon, dry and pre-monsoon seasons, respectively. SVI_1 is

located within this grid.

How Deep Does the Soot aerosols Penetrate?NASA -CAL IPSO Data

DEC to FEBOCT to NOV March to May


34/42

AbsorptionCoef

ft

Detect ion of B rown Carbon Abso rpt ion

Brown Carbon ?


35/42

Relevance to

Larger

Scale


36/42

Correlation

Between Surya

Village andIndo-Gangetic

Plains


37/42

Atmospher ic Heat ing by Aeroso ls :

(About 60% or more is due to biomass burning )

P t t i l Si l St th f th I t t i


38/42

Potential Signal Strength of th e Intervention


39/42

Cooking drives local outdoor BC concentrations.

Forced draft stoves are best from a BC mitigation perspective.

We can measure surface BC emissions with unprecedented spatial

resolution.

We will be able to measure the BC hole from Surface Based

measurements and Generalize to Regional Scales

Should be able to Detect it from Space; But a great Challenge;But NASA is upto it ( Dr. R. Kahn, Goddard)

Wrap-up for Findings from the Surya Pilot Phase


40/42


Subhrendu Pattanayak Duke University

Sustainability:

Affordability and Acceptable Adoption


41/42

Meta Analysis of Stove AdoptionPersonal Char. HH

Char.

In-

come

Credi

t

Energy Access / Supply

X

Fem.

Educ.

Male

Educ.

Low

Caste

HHSize

Income

Credit

Wood?

Wood$

Coal$

Kerosene$

LPG$

Electricity

$

N 2 2 3 6 9 2 2 9 2 3 2 2

% + 50% 100% 67% 100% 50% 67% 50%

% - 67% 50% 50% 33% 100% 50%

% ~ 50% 33% 100% 33% 33% 67% 50%

11 Analyses (8 papers) SES, Income, Credit, substitute prices matter!

Similar findings for meta-analysis (140 analyses from

25 studies) of switching to clean fuels


42/42

Scaling up: Some Findings!I. Who adopts clean fuels and improved cook stoves? (Lewis & Pattanayak)

SES, education, prices, urban matter credit, information campaigns, social marketing not studied

II. What factors explain PCIA program location and stove sales? (Colvin,Pattanayak, Sasser, Vergnano)

sales impacted by institution (government, location) & product(price, testing) characteristics

providers currently in countries with problems (biomass burning,ARI) and prospects (already spending on health programs)

III. Will cook stove programs be cost-beneficial is a wide variety of settings?(Jeuland & Pattanayak)

cost-beneficial stove programs exist, but

substantial heterogeneity of NPV for different stove types

Documents

PilotPhase Final June 13