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.
I have followed discussion on the original report because I believe we are missing some fundamentals when looking at energy replacement in undeveloped countries where the future will see a massive demand for energy . What is missed from this report and subsequent discussion is just what energy poor tribal, nomadic herders or slash and burn locals are to use if we want them to move away from kerosene , charcoal, dung and chopping down trees.
Some will say solar power, but that isn’t the answer for a very simple reason- electricity is an unknown to most poor in a developing country.
What they know is a FLAME…and that currently comes from wood, charcoal or kerosene.
Electrical appliances are mostly unknown, unwanted, or seen as merely supplying them with an extra, a chance to use a new technology.
I have seen solar panels outside a Mongolian nomadic herder’s ger , and they use it for …guess what? A TV and cell phones, but not to replace their cooking which is still done by wood or dried dung. Any new technology they receive is viewed as an extra, not a replacement for a perfectly good system they have used for generations.
Most importantly, any alternative to kerosene, charcoal, wood or dried dung needs to create a flame…they understand a flame. (I have Indian tenants, I supplied a new stove, they cover it with foil, place a gas ring on top and cook from bottled gas). They want the immediacy, high heat and controllability of a flame.
Solar does not create a flame. Wind does not create a flame. And each requires either batteries or a line distribution network. In Africa, line networks are raided for wire for poaching bushmeat. (You want to hear my stories of whole gangs that steal railway lines to ship steel to China?)
So a viable, sustainable alternative energy supply to encourage locals to stop chopping down trees, or using dung, needs to be cheap, robust and low maintenance, easily transportable ( many people are nomadic) and create a flame.
Talk above about clean burning kerosene lamps neglects the robustness that nomadic people or the poorest peasant needs, as those lamp mantles are very fragile.And once they are ruined, they’ll throw aside that equipment and go back to what they know.
The alternative energy they need to adopt is natural gas, now cheap and plentiful from fracking in many developing countries and able to be easily distributed in bottled form, a distribution system that doesn’t have the downsides of an electricity network that is raided for poacher’s snare wire.
The natural gas bottle/gas ring burner cooking/lighting equipment is much more robust than any electrical or kerosene option any time.
Keep it simple, cheap, robust, easily transportable, and a flame…or they’ll just go chop down trees.
Jimshu,
Thank You very much.
Earlier in this thread, I suggested that if the researchers wanted to be convincing they should live with some of the peoples for several weeks because there are so many unknowns and none of us should be telling them what to do until we have been there.
Evidently you have and your experience provides a great deal of illumination !!
Personally, by coincidence, I was in Cancun at the time of the yearly climate change vacation for which I am quite sure we all provide.. Of course I could not get near the gala events. There were miles and miles of tanks mounted with M-60’s and 50 Cal guns.
One night they celebrated Mayan Culture and of course any Mayans lucky enough to be there were servants at their feast. (Reported on TV) Amazingly, only four or five miles away, Mayans lived in a thick jungle and what I saw was that many had some kind of a simple gas burner which supplied a flame for a cooked meal which they had on a very irregular basis. I found myself liking to be there as opposed to a few miles away. They were very welcoming, and the children were as happy and entertaining as children anywhere.
You got it DarrylB.
Gas is the way to go.
People are very entrepreneurial…so if we in the comfort of our developed world impose ways of carbon taxing ourselves to shift wealth to poorer countries on the basis of bringing them new energy, we can bet much of that money will be siphoned off to pay for 50 cal rounds.
If any does get down to the lowest level of need, you can also bet much of that will be used to buy new technology such as tv, cell phones, and motor bikes while mum carries on cooking with kerosene or dried dung.
From their perspective, why change?