Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 763–772 | Cite as

Emissions from burning biofuels in metal cookstoves

  • Veena Joshi
  • Chandra Venkataraman
  • Dilip R. Ahuja
Research

Abstract

Promoting stoves that burn wood and other biofuels more efficiently is one of the means to reduce fuel consumption, but such efficient stoves may also emit more carbon monoxide and total suspended particulates. In an earlier study, a standard chamber method was proposed to estimate emission factors from burning fuelwood (Acacia nilotica). Here that methodology is extended to measure emission factors from burning of dungcakes and crop residues (Brassica or mustard stalks)—common fuels in many developing countries. The amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) and total suspended particulates (TSP) emitted by four different models of stoves, when using each of the three biofuels, are measured.

The CO emission factors range from 13–68 (g/kg) for fuelwood to 26–67 g/kg for dungcakes and 20–114 g/kg for crop residues, for particulates they range from 1.1–3.8 to 4.1–7.8 and 2.1–12.0 g/kg for the three fuels, respectively. On a per unit heat delivered basis, the emissions of CO and TSP from both dungcakes and crop residues are two to three times higher compared to those from fuelwood. While for some “improved” stove-fuel combinations, the increase in emission factors was offset by the increase in thermal efficiency, this was not always so and causes a dilemma. The more efficient stoves are found to have higher emission factors of both CO and TSP for all three fuels. Emissions per standard task (i.e, on a unit heat delivered basis) is proposed as a criterion to evaluate cookstoves.

Key words

Developing countries Cookstoves Biomass combustion Emission factors Performance standards 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Ahuja, D. R., V. Joshi, K. R. Smith, and C. Venkataraman. 1987. Thermal performance and emission characteristics of biomass-burning cookstoves: A proposed standard method for evaluation.Biomass 12:247–270.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, S. F. 1986. Biomass stoves: Engineering design, development and dissemination. Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Arlington, Virginia, and Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. 31 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke, R. (ed.). 1985. Woodstove dissemination. Proceedings of the conference held at Wolfheze, The Netherlands. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.Google Scholar
  4. Foley, G., and P. Moss. 1983. Improved cooking stoves in developing countries, Earthscan Energy Information, London. Programme Technical Report 2. 22 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Gill, J. 1987. Improved stoves in developing countries: A critique.Energy Policy 15:135–144.Google Scholar
  6. Gupta, C. L., U. K. Rao, and U. Prema. 1983. Improved chimneyless fuelwood cookstoves (Pondicherry region). Pages 141–154in K. K. Prasad, and P. Verhaart (eds.), Wood heat for cooking. Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore.Google Scholar
  7. Smith, K. R. 1987. Biofuels, air pollution and health: A global review. Plenum Press, New York, 109 pp.Google Scholar
  8. TERI (Tata Energy Research Institute). 1987. Evaluation of performance of cookstoves in regard to thermal efficiency and emissions from combustion, Research Report. TERI, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  9. Venkataraman, C., P. Raman, and S. Kohli. 1987. Calorific value measurements for biomass fuels.Energy Environment Monitor 3:63–67.Google Scholar
  10. VITA (Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Inc.). 1985. Testing the efficiency of wood burning cookstoves: International Standards, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
  11. WHO (World Health Organization). 1984. Evaluation of exposure to airborne particles in the work environment. WHO Offset Publication No. 80, Geneva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Veena Joshi
    • 1
  • Chandra Venkataraman
    • 2
  • Dilip R. Ahuja
    • 3
  1. 1.Tata Energy Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.PM-221, Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Policy AnalysisWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations