DOCSLIB.ORG

Design Improvements for Top-Lit Updraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users’ Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design Improvements for Top-Lit Updraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users’ Perspective Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2018/34 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling Design Improvements for Top-Lit UpDraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users’ Perspective Made Sania Saraswati DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES INSTITUTIONEN FÖR GEOVETENSKAPER Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2018/34 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling Design Improvements for Top-Lit UpDraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users’ Perspective Made Sania Saraswati Supervisor: Cecilia Sundberg & Mary Njenga Evaluator: Magdalena Kuchler Copyright © Made Sania Saraswati, Published at Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University (www.geo.uu.se), Uppsala, 2018 Content Content ........................................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iii Design Improvements for Top-Lit UpDraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users’ Perspective ........................................................................................................................................ iv Design Improvements for Top-Lit UpDraft Biochar-Producing Gasifier Stove in Rural Kenya from the Users’ Perspective ......................................................................................................................................... v Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... vi 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Aim ................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.2. Research questions ........................................................................................................................ 2 2. Background .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1. Energy and development .................................................................................................................... 3 2.2. Kenya .................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1. Household main energy consumption ......................................................................................... 4 2.3. Biochar and smallholder farmers in Kenya – improved use efficiency of farm-level organic resources in relation energy, crops and soil project ................................................................................... 5 2.3.1. Biochar ........................................................................................................................................ 6 2.3.2. Kwale County .............................................................................................................................. 7 3. Literature review ..................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1. Improved stove projects in Kenya ...................................................................................................... 9 3.2. Linking environmental burden – reduce fuel consumption .............................................................. 10 4. Theoretical framework ......................................................................................................................... 12 4.1. Participatory technology development approach.............................................................................. 12 4.2. Design for environment concept....................................................................................................... 12 5. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 14 5.1. Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 14 5.1.1. Structured user observations ...................................................................................................... 14 5.1.2. Focus group discussion .............................................................................................................. 15 5.1.3. Semi-structured interview.......................................................................................................... 16 5.2. Transformative mixed methods design ............................................................................................. 17 6. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 6.1. Studies of users and cooking practice............................................................................................... 19 6.1.1. The demographic of users .......................................................................................................... 19 6.1.2. Cooking practice ........................................................................................................................ 20 6.2. Study with the users.......................................................................................................................... 25 6.2.1. Experience in using TLUD stove .............................................................................................. 25 6.2.2. Users’ aspirations for TLUD gasifier stove ............................................................................... 27 6.3. Understanding the technology .......................................................................................................... 27 6.3.1. Expectations for the TLUD gasifier stove ................................................................................. 28 6.3.2. Response to the users’ feedback ................................................................................................ 29 7. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 31 7.1. Designing with the users .................................................................................................................. 31 7.2. Meeting the aspirations ..................................................................................................................... 32 7.3. Comparing TLUD gasifier stove and TSF ....................................................................................... 32 7.4. Co-designing for environmentally friendly technology ................................................................... 33 7.5. Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 34 8. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 35 9. Acknowledgement.................................................................................................................................. 35 10. References ............................................................................................................................................. 36 11. Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 40 11.1. Observation checklist ..................................................................................................................... 40 11.2. Focus group discussion result ......................................................................................................... 40 11.3. Interview questions guide ............................................................................................................... 41 11.4. Transcript ........................................................................................................................................ 42 ii List of Figures Figure 2. 1. Geographical location of Kenya (TUBS, 2011) and the relief map of Kenya (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2006) ............................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. 2. Source of cooking energy in Kenya (KNBS, 2009a) ............................................................... 5 Figure 2. 3. TLUD gasifier stove used in BSFK project (left), and the accessories (right) ((KIRDI, n.d.- b) .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2. 4. Biochar technology summary in sub-Saharan Africa showing potential feedstocks (A), the pyrolysis systems (B), the potential applications (C) and forecast on the impacts of application (D)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bringing Clean, Safe, Affordable Cooking Energy to Households Across Africa: an Agenda for Action
    Working Paper Bringing clean, safe, affordable cooking energy to households across Africa: an agenda for action Background paper to the Africa Progress Panel 2015 report Power, People, Planet: Seizing Africa’s Energy and Climate Opportunities Fiona Lambe, Marie Jürisoo, Hannah Wanjiru and Jacqueline Senyagwa Executive summary The majority of households in sub-Saharan Africa – some 700 CONTENTS Page million people – rely on traditional biomass for cooking, and while in other regions, biomass use is decreasing, in AfricaPage it continues to rise. If current trends continue, almost 900 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are expected to cook with 1. INTRODUCTION 4 traditional biomass in 2020. Efforts to bring modern energy 2. HOUSEHOLD ENERGY PATTERNS IN SUB- access to all – electricity and clean fuels – are far outpaced by SAHARAN AFRICA 5 population growth. 3. IMPACTS OF HEAVY RELIANCE ON Traditional biomass use has multiple negative impacts, TRADITIONAL BIOMASS FOR COOKING 6 most notably on health: 600,000 lives are lost each year 4. OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE COOKSTOVE in sub-Saharan Africa due to exposure to biomass smoke. CHALLENGE 10 The economic costs of high reliance of biomass for cooking 5. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE are also substantial, about US$36.9 billion per year, or AFRICAN CHARCOAL SECTOR 14 2.8% of GDP, including US$29.6 billion from productive time lost gathering fuel and cooking. The impacts are 6. CASE STUDIES: IMPROVED COOKSTOVE INTERVENTIONS ACROSS SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 17 particularly severe for women and girls, who are typically responsible for these chores. 7. SUCCESS FACTORS FOR SCALING UP COOKSTOVE PROGRAMMES 24 There is a growing body of knowledge and experience about 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Dissemination of Improved Cookstoves: Lessons from Southeast Asia
    Sustainable Dissemination of Improved Cookstoves: Lessons from Southeast Asia Workshop Report 13 December 2015 YANGON, MYANMAR Key words: Energy Access, Rural Energy, Improved Cookstoves, Clean Cookstoves, Indoor Air Polution Smart Villages We aim to provide policymakers, donors, and development agencies concerned with rural energy access with new insights on the real barriers to energy access in villages in developing countries— technological, financial and political—and how they can be overcome. We have chosen to focus on remote off-grid villages, where local solutions (home- or institution-based systems and mini-grids) are both more realistic and cheaper than national grid extension. Our concern is to ensure that energy access results in development and the creation of ‘smart villages’ in which many of the benefits of life in modern societies are available to rural communities. www.e4sv.org | [email protected] | @e4SmartVillages CMEDT – Smart Villages Initiative, c/o Trinity College, Cambridge, CB2 1TQ Publishing © Smart Villages 2015 The Smart Villages Initiative is being funded by the Cambridge Malaysian Education and Development Trust (CMEDT) and the Malaysian Commonwealth Studies Centre (MCSC) and through a grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Cambridge Malaysian Education and Development Trust or the Templeton World Charity Foundation. This publication may be reproduced in part or in full for educational
    [Show full text]
  • Commercialization of Improved Cookstoves for Reduced Indoor Air Pollution in Urban Slums of Northwest Bangladesh
    COMMERCIALIZATION OF IMPROVED COOKSTOVES FOR REDUCED INDOOR AIR POLLUTION IN URBAN SLUMS OF NORTHWEST BANGLADESH May 2009 This publication was produced by Winrock International under a cooperative agreement for the United States Agency for International Development. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................... III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................ 3 A. Background ...................................................................................................................... 3 B. Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 5 C. Approach .......................................................................................................................... 5 D. Project Team .................................................................................................................... 6 II. PROJECT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 7 A. Baseline Assessment ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Design Features and Performance Evaluation of Natural-Draft, Continuous Operation Gasifier Cookstove
    clean technologies Article Design Features and Performance Evaluation of Natural-Draft, Continuous Operation Gasifier Cookstove Brian Gumino 1, Nicholas A. Pohlman 1,* , Jonathan Barnes 1 and Paul Wever 2 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA; [email protected] (B.G.); [email protected] (J.B.) 2 Chip Energy, Inc., Goodfield, IL 61742, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-815-753-9913 Received: 5 June 2020; Accepted: 10 July 2020; Published: 15 July 2020 Abstract: Biomass cookstoves are used as a common source of heating and cooking in developing countries with most improved cookstove design focusing on developing efficiency in thermal conversion of fuels and safer operation than open flame fires. A top-lit-up-draft (TLUD) cookstove utilizes a gasification process similar to pyrolysis where the solid biomass fuels are heated within a oxygen-limited environment and the syngas are burned which reduces carbon content and particulate matter being introduced into the air. The new continuous-operation design is described to have features for: (1) safe addition of solid fuels during combustion of syngas, (2) removal of biochar at the primary air inlet to manage gasification location, and (3) temperature control of the cooksurface through adjustable exhaust paths. The designed cookstove is found to have a diameter to height ratio 0.42-0.47 in order to offer the cleanest burning of the biofuel. The cooking surface is experimentally studied and the thermal gradient is found for compressed wood pellets. Tracking of the coal-bed is studied as a function of time in order to better understand when additional fuel should be added to ensure constant cooking temperature and operation.
    [Show full text]
  • COMBINED PROJECT INFORMATION DOCUMENTS / INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET (PID/ISDS) CONCEPT STAGE Report No.: PIDISDSC17035 29-Apr-2016
    COMBINED PROJECT INFORMATION DOCUMENTS / INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATA SHEET (PID/ISDS) CONCEPT STAGE Report No.: PIDISDSC17035 29-Apr-2016 Public Disclosure Authorized Date Prepared/Updated: I. BASIC INFORMATION A. Basic Project Data Public Disclosure Copy Country: Rwanda Project ID: P158411 Parent Project ID (if any): Project Name: Rwanda Improved Cookstoves Project (P158411) Region: AFRICA Estimated Estimated 31-Aug-2016 Public Disclosure Authorized Appraisal Date: Board Date: Practice Area Environment & Natural Lending (Lead): Resources Instrument: Sector(s): Other Renewable Energy (100%) Theme(s): Climate change (50%), Pollution management and environmental health (25%), Gender (25%) Borrower(s): Inyenyeri and DelAgua Health Rwanda Implementing Inyenyeri, DelAgua Agency: Financing (in USD Million) Public Disclosure Authorized Financing Source Amount Borrower 27.60 Carbon Fund 10.20 Total Project Cost 37.80 Public Disclosure Copy Environmental B - Partial Assessment Category: Is this a No Repeater project? B. Introduction and Context Public Disclosure Authorized Country Context Although Rwanda has a strong record of robust GDP growth, with a GNI per capita of $644 (2013), the country still ranks amongst the poorest in the world with high levels of vulnerability. It is a small land-locked country of 26,338 km2 in area and a population of 11.7 million people (national census, 2012). It is densely populated in comparison to other African countries: at 480 Page 1 of 12 people per km2, population density is similar to the Netherlands and South Korea (World Bank statistics). Even though population growth has come down substantially over the past fifteen years, with a projected 2.5% annual growth rate according to the United Nations, Rwanda will need to accommodate roughly 7.8 million additional people by 2030, underscoring the importance of introducing environmentally friendly technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Fuel Efficient Cookstove Through a Participatory Bottom-Up Approach Vijay H Honkalaskar1, Upendra V Bhandarkar2* and Milind Sohoni3
    Honkalaskar et al. Energy, Sustainability and Society 2013, 3:16 http://www.energsustainsoc.com/content/3/1/16 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access Development of a fuel efficient cookstove through a participatory bottom-up approach Vijay H Honkalaskar1, Upendra V Bhandarkar2* and Milind Sohoni3 Abstract Background: Since 1940s, other than a few success stories, the outcomes of efforts of development and dissemination of improved cookstoves a have not been so fruitful. This paper presents a bottom-up approach that was successfully implemented to develop a fuel-efficient cookstove in a tribal village that has resulted in a substantial reduction in firewood consumption. Method: The approach ensured people’s participation at multiple stages of the process that started from project selection by capturing people’s needs/desires and studying the existing cooking practice to understand its importance in the local context. The performance of the cookstoves was evaluated by modifying a standard Water Boiling Test to accommodate the existing cooking practice. The improvement of the cookstove was achieved by fabricating a simple twisted tape assembly that could be placed on it without changing the existing cookstove. Results: The optimization of the twisted tape device was first carried out in the laboratory and then implemented in the field. The field-level tests resulted in reduction of firewood consumption by around 21% which is a substantial improvement for such a device. It was also found that the improvement reduced soot b accumulation by around 38% and time of cooking preparations by around 18.5%. Conclusion: Overall, a bottom-up and participatory process that not only addressed people’s perceived needs but also ensured no changes in the existing cooking practice while providing an easy, low cost (around US$1.25) c,and locally manufacturable solution led to a highly successful improvement in the local cookstove that was accepted easily by the villagers.
    [Show full text]
  • Mekelle University College of Business and Economics Department of Management Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Cookstoves
    Mekelle University College of Business and Economics Department of Management Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Cookstoves in Rural Areas: Evidence from ‘Mirt’ Injera Baking Stove (The Survey of Dembecha Woreda, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia) By: Tigabu Alamir A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Management in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Master of Arts Degree in Development Studies (Specialization in Regional and Local Development Studies) Principal Advisor Co-Advisor Girma Tegene (Assistant Professor) Abdulkerim Ahmed (MA) June 2014 Mekelle, Ethiopia Mekelle University College of Business and Economics Department of Management Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Cookstoves in Rural Areas: Evidence from ‘Mirt’ Injera Baking Stove (The Survey of Dembecha Woreda, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia) By: Tigabu Alamir Approved by: Signature 1. ________________________________ _____________ (Chairman) 2. ________________________________ _____________ (Advisor) 3 ________________________________ _____________ (Internal Examiner) 4. _______________________________ _____________ (External Examiner) i Declaration I, Tigabu Alamir, hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Cookstoves in Rural Areas: Evidence from ‘Mirt’ Injera Baking Stove (The Survey of Dembecha Woreda, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia)”, submitted by me for the award of the Degree of Master of Development Studies is my original work and it has not been presented for the award of any other Degree, Diploma,
    [Show full text]
  • WHO Indoor Air Quality Guidelines: Household Fuel Combustion
    WHO IAQ Guidelines: household fuel combustion – Review 2: Emissions WHO Indoor Air Quality Guidelines: Household fuel Combustion Review 2: Emissions of Health-Damaging Pollutants from Household Stoves Convening lead author: Rufus Edwards1 Lead authors: Sunny Karnani1, Elizabeth M. Fisher2, Michael Johnson3, Luke Naeher4, Kirk R. Smith5, Lidia Morawska6 Affiliations: 1Department of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, USA 2Department Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, New York State, USA 3Berkeley Air Monitoring Group, School of Public Health, University of California - Berkeley, CA 4Environmental Health Sciences, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, USA 5Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California - Berkeley, CA, USA 6International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health, School of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Australia Convening lead author: that author who led the planning and scope of the review, and managed the process of working with other lead authors and contributing authors, and ensuring that all external peer review comments were responded to. Lead authors: those authors who contributed to one or more parts of the full review, and reviewed and commented on the entire review at various stages. Disclaimer: The work presented in this technical paper for the WHO indoor air quality guidelines: household fuel combustion has been carried out by the listed authors, in accordance with the procedures for evidence review meeting the requirements of the Guidelines Review Committee of the World Health Organization. Full details of these procedures are described in the Guidelines, available at: http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc ; these include declarations by the authors that they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Gold Standard Improved Cookstove Activities Guidebook
    Gold Standard Improved Cookstove Activities Guidebook 20.04.2016 Increasing commitments to clean-cooking initiatives 1 Table of contents Acknowledgement 4 Boxes, Tables and Figures About partners 4 Box 1: Cost of cooking with solid fuel .....................................................................................................8 Box 2: Global cooking practice .................................................................................................................12 Box 3: Clean Cooking Loan Fund ............................................................................................................22 Abbreviations 5 Box 4: Black Carbon and Clean ..............................................................................................................30 Useful terms 6 Box 5: Health impact quantification methodology Stoves .........................................................31 Executive summary 7 Table 1: Financing solutions for Supplier ............................................................................................. 24 Key findings 7 Table 2: Consumer Financing Options ................................................................................................. 26 Table 3: Distribution channels ................................................................................................................... 29 Introduction 8 Fig. 1: Types of projects certified under GS ........................................................................................16 1.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Energy Ladder, Cookstove Swap-Out Programs, and Social Adoption Preferences in the Cookstove Literature
    The Stoves Are Also Stacked: Evaluating the Energy Ladder, Cookstove Swap-Out Programs, and Social Adoption Preferences in the Cookstove Literature Jessica Gordon, BA Jasmine Hyman, MSc, BA Abstract The Stoves Are Also Stacked: Evaluating the Energy Ladder, Cookstove Swap-Out Programs, and Social Adoption Preferences in the Cookstove Literature The distribution of fuel-efficient cookstoves, whether via aid, subsidies, carbon finance, or public programs, has undergone an international renaissance since the establishment of the “Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves” (GACC) in September 2010, a high profile private-public partnership including the United Nations, the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency, and the Shell Foundation. The dominant discourse within the GACC mission and project strategy is the conviction that cookstoves can attract sufficient carbon finance to completely offset project costs, resulting in highly leveraged returns on donor contributions. Much of the literature has focused on the many positive contributions of cookstove technology including improving public health, decreasing the burden on women, and reducing deforestation. Ample policy publications present recommendations for practitioners regarding cookstove design and project development, though these publications often underreport project failure. Cookstove technology is not a new intervention but with the entrance of innovative financing streams, it is essential to contextualize its past performance within the academic and policy literature. This survey
    [Show full text]
  • Gold Standard Improved Cookstove Methodologies Guidebook GS Simplified, AMS II.G and TPDDTEC
    Gold Standard Improved Cookstove Methodologies Guidebook GS Simplified, AMS II.G and TPDDTEC 07.07.2016 Version 1.0 Image credit: Ecient Cookstoves in the Bahian Recôncavo Region (GS832) Region in the Bahian Recôncavo Ecient Cookstoves Image credit: Table of Contents Acknowledgement: .................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2. Improved cookstove methodology(ies) .................................................................................................. 7 3. Scope and Applicability ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Scope of the methodology ............................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Applicability conditions .................................................................................................................... 9 4. Project boundary .................................................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Geographic boundary ..................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 GHGs emission sources .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Household Cookstoves, Environment, Health, and Climate Change a NEW LOOK at an OLD PROBLEM Public Disclosure Authorized
    Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Environment, Health, and Climate Change Health,andClimate Environment, THE WORLD BANK A NEW LOOK AT AN OLDPROBLEM AT A NEW LOOK Household Cookstoves, Household Cookstoves, Environment, Health, and Climate Change A NEW LOOK AT AN OLD PROBLEM THE WORLD BANK © 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org/climatechange www.worldbank.org/energy E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved. This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. R I G H T S A N D P E R M I S S I O N S The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encour- ages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
    [Show full text]