Interesting point, but I wonder how such a change would come about when people often can’t afford an alternative?
Let there be clean light: Kerosene lamps spew black carbon, should be replaced, study says
By Sarah Yang, Media Relations BERKELEY —
The primary source of light for more than a billion people in developing nations is also churning out black carbon at levels previously overlooked in greenhouse gas estimates, according to a new study led by researchers at UC Berkeley and the University of Illinois.
Results from field and lab tests found that 7 to 9 percent of the kerosene in wick lamps — used for light in 250-300 million households without electricity — is converted to black carbon when burned. In comparison, only half of 1 percent of the emissions from burning wood is converted to black carbon.
Factoring in the new study results leads to a twentyfold increase in estimates of black carbon emissions from kerosene-fueled lighting.
The previous estimates come from established databases used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others. One kilogram of black carbon, a byproduct of incomplete combustion and an important greenhouse gas, produces as much warming in a month as 700 kilograms of carbon dioxide does over 100 years, the authors said.
“The orange glow in flames comes from black carbon, so the brighter the glow, the more black carbon is being made,” said study principal investigator Tami Bond, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “If it’s not burned away, it goes into the atmosphere.”
The findings, published online this month in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, are coming out at the same time that the United Nations Climate Change Conference kicks off in Doha, Qatar. While officials from around the world are seeking effective policies and guidelines for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the study authors note that the simple act of replacing kerosene lamps could pack a wallop toward that effort.
“There are no magic bullets that will solve all of our greenhouse gas problems, but replacing kerosene lamps is low-hanging fruit, and we don’t have many examples of that in the climate world,” said study co-author Kirk Smith, professor at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health and director of the Global Health and Environment Program. “There are many inexpensive, cleaner alternatives to kerosene lamps that are available now, and few if any barriers to switching to them.”
Smith pointed to lanterns with light-emitting diodes that can be powered by solar cells or even advanced cookstoves that generate electricity from the heat produced. Such technology, said Smith, is already available in developing countries.
The researchers used kerosene lamps purchased in Uganda and Peru and conducted field experiments there to measure the emissions. They repeated the tests in the lab using wicks of varying heights and materials, and kerosene purchased in the United States as well as in Uganda.
The study authors noted that converting to cleaner light sources would not only benefit the planet, it would help improve people’s health. A recent epidemiological study in Nepal led by Smith and other researchers at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, for example, found that women who reported use of kerosene lamps in the home had 9.4 times the rate of tuberculosis compared with those who did not use such lamps.
“Getting rid of kerosene lamps may seem like a small, inconsequential step to take, but when considering the collective impact of hundreds of millions of households, it’s a simple move that affects the planet,” said study lead author Nicholas Lam, a UC Berkeley graduate student in environmental health sciences.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Agency for International Development and Environmental Protection Agency helped support this research.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If they can’t afford bread, let them eat cake”
So the solution to global warming is to allow poor people to become rich enough so that they can afford to replace inefficient lighting with more modern lighting?
That at least is a program that I could support.
“The primary source of light for more than a billion people in developing nations is also churning out black carbon”
Black carbon. As oppposed to what sort of non-black carbon? Diamonds?
Okay, Greenpeace, time to go back to whale oil! It’s the only logical conclusion of the “science” you paid for.
Don’t Coleman style lanterns also use kerosene? Since they glow with a white light, I’m guessing they would produce little if any carbon black. I’m also guessing that they are more efficient than the style of lamp shown in the picture above.
For a fraction of the money that was wasted on Solyndra, we could buy every poor person in the world a Coleman style lantern.
I’m willing to bet the Coleman style lanterns would also cost less and last a lot longer than the solar powered led lamps mentioned in the article.
CAGW crowd not interested if it doesn’t require tens of billions in annual grants to study, hundreds of billions in new taxes & trillions in lost economic activity due to greater government control.
Left out of the above press release:
” …. and our secret plan is to make fossil fuel so expensive they won’t be able to afford kerosene anyway”
Yep, how about replacing it with cheap clean coal fired power. They want to take away what they have and also not give them the only sane alternative. Since you need a fossil-fueled plant to back up the proposed solar and windmills (which don’t shine and blow just when you need them and they are not cheap. Why in heck do you ivory tower clones think these poor folk are using kerosene in the first place?
These lamps cause tuberculosis? Huh?
“A recent epidemiological study in Nepal led by Smith and other researchers at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, for example, found that women who reported use of kerosene lamps in the home had 9.4 times the rate of tuberculosis compared with those who did not use such lamps.”
I would venture to guess that households using kerosene for lighting, probably have a number of other lifestyle differences that could cause TB. They are likely burning wood, or worse, for heat and cooking. Berkeley must be chock full of idiots.
Yes, they ought to all have electric light. And power plants to provide the juice. Or sit in the dark.
Do they realise that before kero there was whale oil, and candles, and rush lights, for thousands of years? I’m, pretty sure the earth knows how to eat the carbon.
I strongly suspect this is simply more foolishness. Next we will be told not to use charcoal to cook our food. I am biased of course as soon as I read IPCC I immediately relegate what ever is being said to the world of speculation and fiction.
It’s sad that they have to use AGW to promote the replacement of kerosene lamps. TFA mentions the health benefits of replacing oil lamps. In addition, the replacement lamps would be much more efficient and would pay for themselves by using less fuel.
Bigger health and efficiency gains come by replacing open fires with efficient burners such as the Rocket Stove. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_stove Many ‘greenies’ seem to have a problem understanding it but technology is actually good for the environment and general human well-being.
When I was a kid and the power went out, my father fired up the old Aladdin kerosene lamp. It came off of a Southern Pacific Railroad Caboose. Aladdin has been making those lamps since the early 1900’s. It uses a mantle (like a Coleman lantern) to turn the heat into light. I remember that if I put a piece of paper at the top of the chimney, it would ignite it and I would get fussed at.. Lot’s of waste heat obviously. Once it was hot, there was no visible smoke that I recall. Maybe they just need to improve their kerosene lamps for now.
My first thought was that there was some much wrong in the PR write up of this study, I didn’t know where to begin. But then I thought, “Don’t poo-poo it; bring it on!”
For one thing, if lamp derrived black carbon is so bad, then modeler’s will have to dial back the CO2 sensitivity to account for black carbons ‘just realized’ contribution. Adding an element to your model doesn’t change the historical temperatures you need to match.
Who knows, maybe the shrinking Martian Ice Caps will finally make people admit “Oh, gosh, there is a stronger solar component than we modeled, too.”
Oh why, why, why, oh why don’t scientists insist on reading the PR releases before they got out?
Not all kerosene/paraffin lamps are born equal.
There is a big difference between the amount of carbon emitted by naked wick lamps compared to chimney lamps (with or without a mantle) and a big difference in the light output.
I would wonder whether it would be preferable to get a better lamp rather than upgrade to LEDs/batteries/solar or to a combined heat and electricity producing cooking stove.
Alex
Cheap, reliable electricity benefits EVERYONE on the planet, and here we have the EPA doing everything they can to make CHEAP and RELIABLE electricity more scare
Pardon my French, but how in the hell can previous scientists’ studies overlook such an obvious source? It is not like each study is a lamp in the wilderness; they have earlier papers’ shoulders to stand n. NO ONE thought of this? What an indictment of methodology and thoroughness – for the entire field. Sloppy thinkers and sloppy science.
Steve Garcia
N hem BC emissions are not healthy for people and snow and ice pack.My feeling is Most BC deposits in the arctic region in the N. Hem are caused by high altitude Jet exhaust. Easy to control ground Black Carbon emissions and we would end up having healthier people and cleaner snow and packs for glaciers. My guess is there is about 70% (Except when All Gore files to S.Pole for visits) less BC in S.Hem then northern. That is one reason Antarctica snow and ice is growing with the low sun spot cycles not like N.Hem is my feeling.
While officials from around the world are seeking effective policies and guidelines for cutting greenhouse gas emissions
While continuing to find an excuse to jet around and party at taxpayer expense, officials sought additional rationales for collecting tax-free salaries, planning and controlling economies, and prescribing and limiting individual behaviors. To prevent the gravy train from blowing up, they continued to insist that Gaia had a temperature and that models trump reality.
Luckily back in the US, the EPA in a document mapping out its future plans laid out its adoption of Systems Theory/Systems Dynamics as laid out by Meadows in the controversial Limits to Growth in order to use “Science” to help protect public health. It was utterly delighted to now have so much power over the economy and planned to go on a hiring binge for “Scientists” with aspirations for planning with Big Data. It was also delighted that its new education People, Prosperity, and the Planet (P3) student grant initiative was bringing in plenty of prospective planners captured while their idealism greatly exceeded their knowledge.
The EPA was also excited about its global reach. Nothing that could be tied in to carbon seemed beyond its grasp as 2013 loomed. What a great time to be employed by the Predator State where no problem is too small nor behavior too inconsequential to be captured as part of the Ecosystem view of the world.
Really? Who funds this non-sense?
Are those modern laterns? Sure a lamp without a chiminey will not burn efficiently nor produce a good light but lanterns with a glass chiminey will eliminate most of the problem here. In effect a latern with just a wick is a smudge pot.
Also, note that most of the carbon produced remains inside the building being lit. I attaches to any surface it contacts and is pretty hard to remove. Their conclusions are BS.
Barry Strayer
What a crazy world! Worrying about kerosene lamps as adding to “greenhouse gas problems”, and ignoring the fact that lighting homes with them leads to lung conditions.
Finding alternatives to kerosene lamps is a good thing. The “greenhouse gas problems” aspect is rubbish.