in home assessment of gas emissions biomass …events.awma.org/ghg2011/abstracts/session 9/abstract...
TRANSCRIPT
In‐Home Assessment of Greenhouse Gas and Aerosol Emissions from Biomass C k i l iCookstoves in Developing Countries
Michael A. Johnson1, Tami Bond2, Nicholas Lam1,3, Cheryl Weyant2, Yanju Chen2, Justin Ellis2, Vijay Modi4, Sandeep Joshi5, Mahesh Yagnaraman6, David Pennise1
1 Berkeley Air Monitoring Group, USA2University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign, USA3 University of California, Berkeley, USA4 Columbia University, USAy,5 Center for Rural Technology, Nepal6 First Energy, India
Greenhouse Gas Strategies in a Changing Climateg g gAir and Waste Management Association November 17, 2011
IntroductionIntroduction• Nearly half the world’s population still relies on solid fuels for their primary
energy needs• Climate forcing emissions from residential cookstoves are not well characterized • Residential solid fuel use responsible for one‐fourth of anthropogenic BC
emissions (Bond and Sun, 2005)• Lack of emissions data from normal daily cooking• New stoves represent potential for cost‐effective CO2e emission reductions.• Reducing stove emissions has potential for large co‐benefits
– Health, climate, ecological, economic, social– New evidence for reducing incidence of childhood pneumonia (Smith et al.
2011)• Renewed interest in addressing impacts from use of inefficient cookstoves
(Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, national programs in India, Peru, Mexico and others)
• We need a better understanding of cookstove emissions and potential impacts of new cooking technologies
Estimated cost‐effectiveness (20‐year time frame) of key black carbon abatement measures in Asiaof key black carbon abatement measures in Asia.
Graphic from USAID Report: Black Carbon Emissions in Asia:Graphic from USAID Report: Black Carbon Emissions in Asia: Sources, Impacts, and Abatement Options, 2010, pg. 4
Project description• Measured emissions of CO2, CO, CH4, total non‐methane hydrocarbons (TNMHC),
and particulate matter (characterized by black and organic fractions), from traditional and project stoves in Uganda, Nepal, and India
Chulha Oorja
3‐stone‐fire StoveTec
Uganda
3 stone fire StoveTec
India
Nepal
India
IBCChulha
Sampling MethodsSampling Methods
• Emission samples were collected in homes during uncontrolled cooking events
• Emissions were collected in the plume above the stove and analyzed for CO2 andCO with real‐time and GC analysis; CH4 and total TNMHCs with GC analysis; and PM4.0with gravimetric analysis for mass andthermal optical method for EC/OCthermal optical method for EC/OC
• Emission factors were determined using the carbon balance method.
• 100 yr‐GWPs for gases applied from IPCC100 yr‐GWPs for gases applied from IPCC BC and OC from Bond et al. 2011
1.000Stove performance
0.975
n Efficiency
CO])
Stove performance
0.950
Combu
stion
O2/[CO2+C
0.925
Mod
ified
(C
0.900Uganda
traditionalUganda StoveTec
Nepal traditional
Nepal Improved Biomass
India traditional
India Oorja
E b / 1SDBiomass
• Similar combustion performance amongst traditional and project stoves (92‐94%), with the exception of the Oorja (~96%)
Error bars = +/- 1SD
• All project stoves had increased heat transfer efficiency30‐50% less energy per meal
Relative CO2e emissions
2500
3000
3500 OC BC TNMHCCH4 CO CO2
1500
2000
2500
person
‐meal)
500
1000
CO2e (g
/p
‐500
0
Uganda Uganda Nepal Nepal India India OorjaUganda traditional
Uganda StoveTec
Nepal traditional
Nepal Improved Biomass
India traditional
India Oorja
• All project stoves had lower CO2e emissions per meal• Oorja combusted fuel more completelyj p y• BC the largest non‐CO2 contributor to CO2e (4‐37%)
20Aerosol Emissions
14
16
18
20kg fu
el)
PM BC
8
10
12
14
on factor (g/
2
4
6
8
PM emissio
0
2
Uganda traditional
Uganda StoveTec
Nepal traditional
Nepal Improved
India traditional
India Oorja
7% 8%14%14%15%
6%
E b / 1SDBiomass• Only Oorja emitted less BC and as lower fraction of PM• StoveTec emitted more BC overall and had higher BC content in PMN /i t ti t d f l l ti f th i li t i t
Error bars = +/- 1SD
• New/intervention stoves need careful evaluation of their climate impacts
Controlled and uncontrolled testing1 00 Water boiling tests In-home stove use
0.96 0.970.97
0.96 0.96
0.940 93 0.93
0.940 93
0.94
0.96
0.98
1.00O
) (as
car
bon)
Water boiling tests In home stove use
0.92
0.890.91 0.91
0.920.93 0.93 0.93
0 86
0.88
0.90
0.92
CO
2/(C
O2+
C
0.86
‐ Stoves perform differently during controlled laboratory testing compared to normal usage.Stoves perform differently during controlled laboratory testing compared to normal usage.‐Many stoves perform better in laboratory due to idealized conditions for boiling water. ‐IPCC default and other emission inventories have relied on cookstove emission factors from controlled testingW d h i fi ld b d i i i t f b li d‐We need a comprehensive, field‐based emissions inventory of baseline and new
cookstoves/fuels
Laboratory testing 1.00
• Water Boiling Test (WBT) most common laboratory test
0.95
(as
carb
on)
• Designed to replicate cooking cycle of rice or beans
0.90
CO
2/(C
O2+
CO
)
• Idealized fuel conditions and fire tending
0.850 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
C
Open fire WBT boil (N=6)Open fire WBT simmer (N=6)Open fire in-home (N=4)
• Neither the WBT’s boiling nor
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Emissions rate (g[c] min-1) Johnson et al. 2009
• Neither the WBT s boiling nor simmering phases representative of normal daily cooking
• Difficult to replicate real‐world pconditions
ConclusionsConclusions• The relative CO2e contributions, especially from BC, vary substantially
d di i hi hli h i h d f llacross stove type and test conditions, highlighting the need to carefully evaluate stove emissions in the field to assess potential climate impacts
• Stove adoption, usage, patterns, and lifetime are also critical components hi h d b id d h l i ll i i ’ iwhich need to be considered when evaluating overall emission’s impact
• Assessment of a wider range of cooking solutions, including clean fuels (e.g. LPG, ethanol, biogas, kerosene, and plant oils), advanced stoves (e.g. f d i ifi TLUD d l ti ) k t t d th ldforced air, gasifier, TLUD, and pyrolytic), rocket stoves, and others would provide a valuable database of stove emissions performance
• Better connection between laboratory and field performance of stoves ld id t d i t l f t t d d d i i thwould aid stove design, protocols for stove standards, and increasing the
overall relevance of stove performance testing
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis work was made possible through support by the United States Agency for International Development (contract #: DOT‐I‐00‐04‐00002‐00) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (contract #: EP10H000942). We are especially grateful for the help and support from our local partners on thisespecially grateful for the help and support from our local partners on this project and the families who graciously opened their homes to us. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein or those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the USAID or USEPAauthors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the USAID or USEPA.
A report on the USAID funded study can be found at:http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/economic_growth_and_trade/energy/publications/uganda_emissions_report.pdf
A presentation on the field performance assessment of the USEPA funded project can be found at: http://www pciaonline org/files/PCIA Aug11 Webinar FieldTestResults FINAL pdfhttp://www.pciaonline.org/files/PCIA_Aug11_Webinar_FieldTestResults_FINAL.pdf.
Contact information:Michael Johnson, [email protected] , www.berkeleyair.com, j @ y , y
ReferencesReferencesBond TC, Zarzycki C, Flanner MG, Koch DM (2011) Quantifying immediate radiative forcing by black carbon and organic matter with the Specific Forcing Pulse. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 10: 15713‐15753
Johnson, M., Edwards, R., Berrueta, V., Masera, O., 2009. New Approaches to Performance Testing of Improved Cookstoves. Environ Sci Technol 44, 368‐374.
Smith KR, McCracken JM, Weber MW, Hubbard H, JennyA, Thompson L, Balmes J, DiazA, Arana B, Bruce N, RESPIRE: A Randomised Controlled Trial of the impact of reducing household air pollution on childhood pneumonia in Guatemala, the Lancet 378: 1717–26, 202011.
USAID, 201. Black Carbon Emissions in Asia: Sources, Impacts, and Abatement Options