Briquettes reduce indoor air pollution and provide better cooking

by

Having the global poor switch to soot free cooking would save millions of lives per year and reduce global warming. Soot causes 30% of warming. 2 billion people cook with open fires or polluting cookers. About 4.3 million people die each year from indoor air pollution. The burning of materials indoor is for cooking, heating and lighting.

It has been difficult to get clean cooking machines to be adopted. The soot-free cookers did not perform as well regular cookers.

China had some success in significant indoor air pollution reduction.

They used carbonized solid fuels in residential cooking practice.

Four biochar samples, three semi-coke briquette samples and their raw materials were tested in a typical cooking stove. These carbonized samples showed higher thermal efficiencies and lower particulate matter (PM) emission factors (EFs) than their raw material samples. Owing to distilled volatile matter during carbonization treatment, average energy delivered-based PM2.5 EFs were 10 ± 5 mg/kJ (carbonized) and 50 ± 28 mg/kJ (raw) for the biomass and 0.33 ± 0.04 mg/kJ (carbonized) and 3.0 ± 1.3 mg/kJ (raw) for the coal samples. The energy delivered-based EFs of organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 16 priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons extracted from PM2.5 samples from carbonized fuels were reduced by 97 ± 1%, 93 ± 3%, and 97 ± 2%, respectively, for the tested biomass samples, and those for the tested coal samples were 96 ± 1%, 90 ± 6%, and 98 ± 2%, respectively. Significant reduction in air pollutant emissions from household cooking stoves by replacing raw solid fuels with their carbonized products.

Deaths related to cooking related indoor air pollution fell by 29% between 2005 and 2015 in China. Surprisingly, government restrictions accounted for only a fraction of this decrease. Eighty percent of the drop was spurred by a reduction in people’s use of wood and other dirty fuels for cooking and heating. Rural people either migrated to cities or gained enough income to buy cleaner fuels (carbonized briquettes).

Carbonized solid fuels reducing carcinogenic potency and pollutants, most of which are highly correlated with the volatile matter content of the fuel. Switching from raw solid fuel to carbonized solid fuel will help to reduce pollutant emissions from household combustion and achieve both environmental benefits and health benefits for household residents.

(PDF) Significant reduction in air pollutant emissions from household cooking stoves by replacing raw solid fuels with their carbonized products. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327428794_Significant_reduction_in_air_pollutant_emissions_from_household_cooking_stoves_by_replacing_raw_solid_fuels_with_their_carbonized_products [accessed Nov 20 2018].

Studies showed that poor people in Haiti like using carbonized briquettes.

* carbonized briquettes became hotter than charcoal allowing for faster cooking, meaning that the same amount of food could be cooked with relatively less fuel than if they had used charcoal.
* Multiple participants also cited liked the ease and speed of lighting the briquettes, as well as the cleanliness of handling them. In comparison to charcoal, the majority of participants rated the briquettes the same or better than charcoal across multiple usability parameters: lighting, initial fuel loading,
topping up fuel during cooking, simmering, frying, and boiling.
* The most commonly cited frustration with the briquettes was the amount of ash produced during the cooking

12 thoughts on “Briquettes reduce indoor air pollution and provide better cooking”

  1. “Deaths related to cooking related indoor air pollution fell by 29% between 2005 and 2015 in China. … Rural people either migrated to cities or gained enough income to buy cleaner fuels (carbonized briquettes).”

    How many people went to charcoal vs. even cleaner sources like electric or natural gas? Does this study include the soot caused by making the charcoal in the first place? The pollution may not be inside people’s houses, but it might be just moving to another place and still getting into the environment.

  2. Right. Haiti already uses a lot of charcoal and is famous for deforestation (look at aerial view of them vs. Dominican Republic on the same island). More charcoal is not the answer.

    I’ve donated to a solar oven project there, which cooks with sunlight. Even natural gas is loads better than charcoal, if it can be piped to the customers.

  3. “Soot causes 30% of warming”

    Really? Where did that statistic come from? I follow the science, and I realize that global warming is a real issue, but soot is a mixed bag when it comes to warming. Studies have shown it actually reduces warming overall. Ironically, our air-pollution laws have been pretty effective at reducing soot, which is great for our lungs, but not for global warming. Even if there’s new research that I’m not aware of, 30% seems like an awfully high number. I’ve heard nearly 50% of global warming gases is from agriculture and land use (clear-cutting, single-use farming, feedlots for cows, etc). Next biggest source is transportation. I guess technically this may not be a “global warming gas”, so it would fall outside of those numbers, but still leaves me quite suspicious.

  4. At a wild guess, that would be much more of an issue in cold countries where homes are sealed up in winter, and not in hot tropical countries where houses are open for ventilation.
    So, a danger in much of China, not an issue in Haiti.

  6. Carbon monoxide is a generally recognized hazard of indoor charcoal use. I’ve read many reports of people dying that way. Urban myth?

  7. “Deaths related to cooking related indoor air pollution fell by 29% between 2005 and 2015 in China. … Rural people either migrated to cities or gained enough income to buy cleaner fuels (carbonized briquettes).”

    How many people went to charcoal vs. even cleaner sources like electric or natural gas? Does this study include the soot caused by making the charcoal in the first place? The pollution may not be inside people’s houses, but it might be just moving to another place and still getting into the environment.

  8. Right. Haiti already uses a lot of charcoal and is famous for deforestation (look at aerial view of them vs. Dominican Republic on the same island). More charcoal is not the answer.

    I’ve donated to a solar oven project there, which cooks with sunlight. Even natural gas is loads better than charcoal, if it can be piped to the customers.

  9. “Soot causes 30% of warming”

    Really? Where did that statistic come from? I follow the science, and I realize that global warming is a real issue, but soot is a mixed bag when it comes to warming. Studies have shown it actually reduces warming overall. Ironically, our air-pollution laws have been pretty effective at reducing soot, which is great for our lungs, but not for global warming. Even if there’s new research that I’m not aware of, 30% seems like an awfully high number. I’ve heard nearly 50% of global warming gases is from agriculture and land use (clear-cutting, single-use farming, feedlots for cows, etc). Next biggest source is transportation. I guess technically this may not be a “global warming gas”, so it would fall outside of those numbers, but still leaves me quite suspicious.

  10. At a wild guess, that would be much more of an issue in cold countries where homes are sealed up in winter, and not in hot tropical countries where houses are open for ventilation.
    So, a danger in much of China, not an issue in Haiti.

Comments are closed.