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.
John M says:
November 29, 2012 at 9:15 am
“One kilogram of black carbon, a byproduct of incomplete combustion and an important greenhouse gas…
Oh why, why, why, oh why don’t scientists insist on reading the PR releases before they got out?”
No, No. You do the science. Leave the PR stuff to us. We’re the professionals.
Eric H. says:
November 29, 2012 at 9:28 am
“Really? Who funds this non-sense?”
Probably your Uncle Sam!
Gore, Pachaury and a few friends have passed round the hat to solve the problem:
http://im.rediff.com/money/2009/oct/28teri.jpg
Or even Pachauri.
Michael Tremblay says:
November 29, 2012 at 9:48 am
Mike
I’m afaid you are confused. It is the message which is importanat. The science will just confuse the reader!
Even UC Berkley must have Professors (or even undergrads) who know this paper is scientific BS!
I’m not the first to say it, but the solution is blatantly obvious. Coal-fired power stations. A lot less pesky emissions than kerosene, and a lower price than just about anything else. Price matters for people with little money. Coal is in abundant supply, and it uses totally tried and tested technology. Although the total energy in question is relatively small in global terms, the percentage reduction in CO2 emissions would massively outstrip anything that any country in Kyoto has achieved. What’s not to like?
Black carbon seeds persistent (non-precipitating) clouds which cool the climate. Most of the world has seen large reductions in BC emissions over the last 50 years (mostly thanks to coal fired power stations replacing domestic combustion of coal/wood/oil).
This IMO is the main cause of the warming over the last 50 years – reduced BC and other aerosol seeded clouds.
Coleman sells lanterns to go with kerosene; one is shown here (for over $100):
http://www.coleman.com/Products/1015/liquid-fuel-lanterns
It also sells dual fuel models that work with either unleaded gasoline or “Coleman Fuel” (alcohol?); others work with propane. The latter are the cheapest at $40. Most others are around or over $100.
A neat accessory (which the seller claims fits all lanterns with a bail) is a $17 semi-circular reflector that avoids wasted lighting (and hence allows a lower setting of the dial):
http://www.basspro.com/Coleman-Lantern-Reflector/product/10230019/?hvarAID=shopping_googleproductextensions&om_mmc=shopping_googleproductextensions&affcode_c=17kw3123366&SST=34a5d011-4dd4-11a8-4b29-000008d8090b
andyb says:
November 29, 2012 at 1:38 pm
i) Carbon tax in developed world -> less energy consumption in developed world ->lower energy prices in developing world.
ii) carbon tax in developed world -> investment in energy saving tech and new energy sources -> that tech trickle down to developing world -> higher living standards per energy consumption in developing world.
i + ii -> carbon taxes in developed world increase living standards in developing world, before considering effects on climate. (Unless you think the developing world is highly dependent on energy intensive imports from the developed world)
You greenies live in a dream world, full of make-believe, and divorced from the reality of how economics works. None of what you stated would happen. Carbon taxes would simply mean higher prices, forcing some industries overseas, where costs were lower (like China) and lowering living standards in the developed world. The only beneficiaries would be countries like China. Your Greenie dreams would be of no benefit whatsoever to developing countries, and if anything, they’d be even worse off.
“[Coleman] also sells dual fuel models that work with either unleaded gasoline or “Coleman Fuel” (alcohol?)”
No “Coleman Fuel” is not alcohol – it’s volatility is comparable to regular non-diesel vehicle gasoline and equally explosive!
andyb says:
November 29, 2012 at 1:38 pm
“c)
i) Carbon tax in developed world -> less energy consumption in developed world ->lower energy prices in developing world.”
andy, if you want to make the sacrifice yourself to move your standard of living down toward the developing world’s by decreasing your own energy consumption, you can already do it – and also find out something about what the sacrifice will actually entail – without a carbon tax on the rest of us. Such sacrifice is apparently your way to find “meaning in life”, so it’s your responsibility and burden.
But it’s not mine: in your imposed “carbon tax” panacea, I see only a meaningless destruction of wealth and decreased standards of living , totalitarian control and the appropriation of created wealth, and the stifling of the further creation of wealth and increases in the standard of living which got us to this eeeevilll “wealth inequality between the rich and poor nations” in the first place.
The World needs more wealth creation from all nations and America’s way of creating wealth should be a model for it!
Wealth is not a “fixed pie”. It must be created, even to be sustained at a certain level. Energy availability is critical to wealth creation. Meanwhile, andy, you seem to be interested only in your own version of “pie in the sky”.
“ii) carbon tax in developed world -> investment in energy saving tech and new energy sources -> that tech trickle down to developing world -> higher living standards per energy consumption in developing world.”
You mean like the trickle down solar and wind energy investments which are already a proven failure at their site of production in Europe; and like the U.S. Gov’t investments which have produced 19 “green energy” bankruptcies from the Obama Adm.? Maybe Algae?
Attn, andy! Have you noticed that China is constructing just about as many coal-fired electricity plants as possible, as an integral part of its path out of its under-developed ‘disaster’ and toward higher standards of living? Or that due to the failure of solar and wind energy “investments”, Germany itself is now moving heavily into coal-fired electricity?
The “ugly American” (i.e., practical, low-cost) solution to the immediate soot problem would be for a pilot project to distribute add-on glass chimneys as an accessory to existing smudge-pot type kerosene lamps. They’d need to have a wide base dipped in some “grippy” substance to reduce tipping over and/or sliding off, and they’d have to be thick, to reduce breakage if they did fall off. If possible, some sort of way of securely attaching them to the lamp, however clunky, should be devised.
These should not only reduce soot but also increase the efficiency of the lamps, allowing lower fuel consumption or better lighting. Once statistics on the increased efficiency could be obtained, these could be sold as cost-saving add-ons. Or maybe given away, if Greenpeace wants to foot the bill. And the government of India could mandate that all new lamps sold must include such a chimney.
A couple of months ago, the Economist had a very good article on the prospect of replacement of kerosene lamps with solar-charged LED lamps.
http://www.economist.com/node/21560983
Nothing about climate change, just the economic and health benefits to the users.
A paper describing a stove-powered thermoelectric generator can be downloaded here:
http://edge.rit.edu/content/P10451/public/Thermoelectric%20power%20generation%20from%20biomass%20cook%20stoves%20Champier%20et%20al
The bottom line cost is about 120 Euros, based on the following summary. Note that the Euro symbol came out as “V”.
[…]
This study shows that it is possible to obtain a useful power of about 6W regulated electrical power with 4 TE modules for the stove. The cost price has been briefly estimated as follows:
– The price for the electronic part is 31V for one sample and drops to 15V for more than 100 samples.
– The price of one TE module for the generator is 75V and it decreases to 19V for 10,000 pieces. However, the price of Peltier TE cooling modules of the same size produced in large
quantities starts at 16V for one piece and decreases to 12V for 100 pieces. As the production of Peltier modules uses the same materials and the same technology except for welding on the
hot side, the price should decrease in the years to come to a more reasonable value probably around 25V for more than 100 samples.
We can estimated the price of our TE generator for a production of at least 100 pieces around 120V for 6W. So the cost per watt of our prototype is around 20V.
[…]
According to the paper the estimated 2009 cost is 120 Euros. At an exchange rate of 1E = $1.30, the cost would be about $160.
The unit price of thermoelectric produced electricity is 20 Euros or $26 per watt. The 2010 unit price of coal produced electricity from, for example:
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
is about $0.04 per kilowatt. Compare that with the unit price of the thermoelectric solution, $26,000 per kilowatt.
The first commenter said it best.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:43 am
“If they can’t afford bread, let them eat cake”
Lots of misunderstandings out there today! Wow!
Mosher, your first comment is correct.
Black Carbon has a very large GHG forcing equivalent but it is not a gas,that’s true.
It doesn’t scatter light it absorbs it which is why it is black.
It heats the air directly, immediately.
Light is emitted from glowing particles. If the quality of the kerosene flame is greatly improved less light is emitted per game of fuel. That is why high quality flames have a mantle.
Kerosene is quite capable of being burned with no flame visible at all. Google FLOX.
BC below 4 microns is respirable and a serious complicating factor for all lung ailments.
Most BC is from burning biomass.
Very small BC particles are strong absorbers of UV.
BC is net warming. Organic Carbon is net cooling.
Tami Bond is on no one’s gravy train and is an actual expert on the matter of BC. She has a PhD in the subject and is also an engineer. Hence her technical tact with words.
The many comments that BC matters to the total forcing are correct. All warming has to be divided across the contributing factors. Increase one (BC) and all others have to decrease.
Finally, evaporated kerosene causes a lot of lung damage because it causes chemical pneumonia. Poorly burning wick lamps all evaporate fuel. High quality kerosene combustion can be obtained for much less than $20. Google REDI stove and FSP stove. Both could be lanterns instead.
Please give a care for clean air! Bad indoor air kills more people than malaria.
So “black carbon” is an “important greenhouse gas” ??
So what is the chemical formula for black carbon gas ?
It can’t be just C because as we all know, mono-atomic gases are not infra-red active. Try finding the Modtran spectrum for C gas.
And we can also eliminate C2, since homo-diatomic gases also are not infra-red active, like H2, well, and N2 /O2 of course. Would 16O18O be considered a homo-diatomic inactive gas ?
So I guess black carbon gas has to be C3 or maybe it’s some sort of n(C3) “polymer” ?
Well it’s an intriguing question. Is C60 Buckygas infra-red active ?
Enquiring minds want to know about this new gas.
Could black carbon gas molecules be big enough to act as nucleation centers for water droplet formation. Burning kerosene is a well know source of H2O greenhouse gas, so along with black carbon gas, it might just make more clouds, which would be a big cooling effect.
And I’m sure those primitive wick kero lamp users, prefer the warm white output, as more relaxing than the eye sore cold white of Coleman kero lamps; so they might simply throw the Coleman lamps out. Best to let people use what they want to. Why would a Bushman nomad of Africa; apparently the ancestor of all of us, want to have an iPhone 5 ?
Yes black carbon gas, is the key to an entirely new generation of goverment grant addicts to build their career around !!
It doesn’t scatter light it absorbs it which is why it is black.
BC does scatters as well depending on particle size, but you are right BC predominantly absorbs and re-emits.
Because sources of soot also are responsible for a significant fraction of organic carbon,
uncertainties in the net forcing for black carbon (positive) and associated organic particles
(negative) are particularly important. This net forcing can vary significantly with the
reflectivity of the underlying surface (e.g., white ice or clouds vs. dark sea). When soot
particles are present over a darker surface, the incoming sunlight absorbed by black carbon
and scattered toward space by the organic carbon reduce the sunlight reaching the surface
(dimming). This cooling effect partly offsets the atmospheric heating caused by black carbon.
However, when these particles exist over white clouds or a snow covered surface, the energy
balance is changed. Much of the reduction in sunlight reaching the ground caused by
absorption and scattering by soot would have been reflected upwards by the white surface
anyway; this greatly diminishes the potential cooling.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/black-carbon-12-16-09.pdf
But my point about BC causing atmospheric warming and climate cooling stands.
In Nepal people in non-urban areas often produce heavy smoke inside the building on purpose to help preserve the wood. I am sure that will have an unhealthy effect on their lungs.
”Primary source of light”? I thought the primary source of light was the sun.
Intuit mummies (women and children) found in Greenland had damage to their lungs because of whale oil lamps. By damaging your lungs you are more likely to catch airborne deceases such as TB or other lung infections.
“If it’s not burned away, it goes into the atmosphere.”
Really? In my experience the use of indoor kerosene lamps causes the carbon to coat mostly the ceiling and to some extent the walls of the room where they are used. I doubt that very much of the particulates ever have the opportunity to reach the great outdoors. No doubt some of this carbon does indeed coat the inside of the lungs causing health impacts, although it seems pretty far-fetched to say it causes an increase in ill-health related to the contagious disease TB which is pread by a bacterium.
This link might be interesting (and makes a link between kerosene or other lamp fuels not such a stretch as others seem to believe):
http://www.searo.who.int/en/Section10/Section2097/Section2106_10682.htm
“he risk of prevalence of TB infection is more among current or ex-smokers than never smokers. The risk of TB is more with the duration of smoking than the number of cigarettes smoked daily.”
TB has been the scourge of South Africa for many decades. Sleeping in overcrowded conditions with inadequate ventilation promotes its rapid spread; conditions which quite incidentally go with paraffin lamps. If you have a lamp burning in the open, as at a barbecue, the carbon black will disperse, temporarily, into the lower atmosphere. In an inadequately ventilated room where the majority of such lamps are used, the carbon black will mainly be deposited on the nearest solid surface where it is likely to remain for all time.
Chris @NJ_Snow_Fan says:
November 29, 2012 at 9:28 am
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.
My feeling is that you know little about jet exhaust emissions or other sources of particulate material from on high.
The amount of meteoric dust that enters the earth’s atmosphere on a daily basis is the equivalent (in terms of PM10 emissions from jet engines) of operating ~10,000 Boeing 777 flights at maximum range, ie one 777 landing from a maximum range flight every 9 seconds of the day. Since only ~1,000 have been built and it takes between 16 and 18 hours to carry out a maximum range flight the Boeing 777 is not going to compete with meteoric debris.
This is not a well researched area and climate scientists would be well advised to put more effort into finding out the effects of aerosols.
Response to Michael Tremblay:
I’m not saying that kerosene lamps lead to TB. I was thinking about respiratory problems caused by having to burn stuff in a home. Burning fuels for cooking without adequate evacuation of exhaust gases is a problem.
Adequate supply of electricity would be a good solution. Let them burn coal in a power station.