Posted originally at Talk:Smokeless and wood conserving stoves[edit]

Hard data?

Big claims are made on some sites, e.g.:

"Wood-conserving stove construction has proved highly popular among participants, for example. Reducing the average amount of wood required for cooking by 50%, each stove saves ten trees per year from being cut for firewood. Additionally, the stoves' chimneys divert damaging smoke away from the women and children who would otherwise suffer lung and eye damage from an open fire in the home. Stove construction, at about US$25 per unit, presents a feasible opportunity for participants to conserve resources and reap the benefits. " - http://www.sustainableharvest.org/country_programs.cfm, re Latin American programs

But Rethinking the Latin American Cookstove is more critical. Most sites are more enthusiastic than critical, so it would be good to have some hard data as to how well they really work. (Enthusiasm's great, but it's not enough on its own.) --Singkong2005 01:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some work is being done on testing and improving stoves: see this blog post on the Aprovecho Biomass Stove Camp 2006 --Singkong2005 20 September 2006

Proposing that Cook stove be merged into this article

Cook stove and Smokeless and wood conserving stoves are mostly about the same subject, so I've proposed a merge. A couple of issues have to be resolved though:

  1. The way Cook stove starts off, it seems to be about any kind of biomass-fueled stove, both the improved types and the inefficient, smoky ones. And the definition of cookstove in Webster is "a stove for cooking," which is far more general. Perhaps material on the traditional stoves (the simple, smokey, unimproved ones) should be placed at Biomass cook stove or Traditional stove?
  2. What is the best name? When I created Smokeless and wood conserving stoves I was trying to cover the two related terms I had encountered (smokeless stoves and wood conserving stoves) which described the same or similar technologies. --Singkong2005 talk 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would hold with the name “Cook stove” as it is the more common name used in development work. Someone looking in Wikipedia for information concerning cook stoves, improved or simple would most likely use this term. Also I would not split the traditional cook stoves from the improved cook stoves, I would keep the two together in the same article; it is hard to discus improved cook stoves without talking about traditional ones and how the two differ. Also a lot of proponents of improved cook stoves use a fair amount of hyperbole when discusing their favorite stove. Keeping the two together keeps the playing field level. Brimba 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading/ambiguous info about fuel consumption[edit]

I beleive the following to be misleading: The first way to reduce the amount of fuel a family consumes is simply to use a cooking lid while cooking, which by itself reduces fuel consumption by 40%. This simple change will normally save more fuel by itself than switching to an improved stove.

Reduces fuel consumption by 40% during which phase of cooking? Pool boiling? Simmering? Frying? Simply stating that a lid reduces fuel consumption by 40% is not strictly true in all cases. It also does not take into account actual use of the stove, for example what type of food is being cooked, the necessary temperature for cooking the food, cooking length, etc. These factors have a large impact on the fuel rate, and are not necessarily altered significantly by a pot lid.

--Penn 129.186.195.232 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW my personal experience (cooking on gas) is that much greater reduction than 40% is obtained with a lid. Tabby (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Discussion[edit]

The merger discussion can be found at the Cooker talk page - Jeremy (Jerem43 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

definition[edit]

I think this is an admirable article that ought to be under some other title (like High-efficiency cookstoves) since it mostly seems to be about conserving energy resources in underdeveloped nations rather the actual definition, my dictionary defines cook stove "as a stove for cooking". Awotter (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Biomass Cook Stoves" :) Brimba (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that's a proper name, and I don't believe it is, it should not be all-uppercase. Also, please double-check to make sure that you don't leave any double redirects hanging around when you move pages. Ewlyahoocom (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)A reader recently asked, "What is the concept behind cooking with a wok versus just a plain old frying pan on the burner?" It's a reasonable question. Frying, or cooking food in hot fats or oils, has been a popular cooking technique with numerous cultures since ancient times, most of whom do not use a wokNonetheless, the wok has always been the utensil of choice for stir-frying, a cooking technique that was developed to deal with shortages of both oil and ingredients. The wok's unique shape ensures that heat is distributed evenly, allowing for faster cooking times. And the wok's deep, sloping sides make spills less likelyAs the instruction booklet that came with one of my woks proudly announced: "This Chinese classic is a triumph of kitchen engineering. It has had no need for design improvements or changes after centuries and millions of satisfied users." That is, until it met up with the latest in North American kitchen appliances.<refhttp://chinesefood.about.com/library/weekly/aa030901a.htm</ref>Designed to fit or sink into a Chinese wood stove, the wok is decidedly unstable on western electric or gas stoves. Manufacturers originally tried to solve the problem by designing a metal ring or "collar" to fit underneath and stabilize the wokThis is still the recommended procedure if you cook with a gas stove. However, for those who use electric stoves, something else was required. Ultimately, manufacturers came up with the flat-bottomed wok. At the same time they also replaced the round handles (made to lift the wok in and out of the oven) with one long handleThere's no doubt that this new design is much safer. Unfortunately, it also departs somewhat from the original concept that made the wok such an excellent cooking tool. True, the flat bottom is more effective in conducting heat from the stove's flat electric coils than would be the case with a round bottom. On the other hand, the heat is no longer concentrated right at the center. This means more oil is required, and it's harder to toss ingredients, since the wok can't be tilted.[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cook stove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Clean cooking[edit]

There is some brainstorming at Talk:Clean cooking that editors of this page might be interested in. Please join in to share your ideas. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move and proposed rescoping 15 May 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cook stove → Improved cookstove – This article currently covers 1) The problems associated with traditional cookstoves and open fires, 2) A type of cooking technology that is widely referred to as an "improved cookstove", 3) Briefer coverage of some other types of cooking technologies such as solar cookers, and 4) Issues with implementing cleaner cooking solutions. We now have an article called Energy poverty and cooking that also covers #1, #3, and #4, and puts all types of solutions into the context of clean cooking strategies. After the move, I would like to transfer some content to the Energy poverty and cooking article so that the Improved cookstove article focuses only on improved cookstoves, their health effects, and their implementation issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed lead for new "Improved cook stove" article[edit]

Assuming there is consensus for renaming, I've drafted a new lead section to replace the current one. Feel free to edit. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved cook stoves in Uganda.

In the context of energy poverty and cooking, improved cook stoves are biomass stoves that are intended to replace traditional cook stoves and open fires. As of 2020, more than 2.6 billion people in developing countries lack access to clean, modern fuel and technologies for cooking, and therefore rely on burning polluting fuels such as wood, animal dung, coal, or kerosene for cooking.[1] Compared to traditional cook stoves, ICS are usually more fuel-efficient and aim to reduce the negative health impacts associated with exposure to toxic smoke.[2]

As of 2016, no widely-available biomass stoves meet the standards for clean cooking as defined by the World Health Organization.[3] However, ICS are an important interim solution where deploying clean fuels and technologies is less feasible.[4]

References

  1. ^ "Access to clean cooking – SDG7: Data and Projections – Analysis". IEA. October 2020. Retrieved 2021-03-31.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Gall, E. T., Carter, E. M., Matt Earnest, C., & Stephens, B. (2013). Indoor air pollution in developing countries: research and implementation needs for improvements in global public health. American journal of public health, 103(4), e67-e72.
  3. ^ World Health Organization 2016, p. 88.
  4. ^ World Health Organization 2016, p. 12.

Proposed disambiguation page for "Cook stove"[edit]

Cook stove may refer to:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need to decide: cookstove or cook stove?[edit]

The article's title is cookstove but in the article I often see it as two words: cook stove. Let's make a decision one way or another and then be consistent. EMsmile (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot pinging you, just in case you overlooked my question here (as you normally reply so quickly). :-) EMsmile (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it but have been too busy to think about it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-biomass?[edit]

What is the source for the claim that improved cookstoves can be non-biomass? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section in our article called "Classification of cook stoves". In there you see also non-biomass cookstoves. So for me that seems to indicate that improved cookstoves includes non-biomass cookstoves. Aren't any cookstoves that reduce indoor air pollution "improved"? I haven't yet hunted around for references though. We should also work on the section called "Classification of cook stoves" to indicate which stoves in that listing are regarded as improved and which are not. I had a look at Energypedia and found this here: "Cookstoves are commonly called “improved” if they are more efficient, emit less emissions or are safer than the traditional cook stoves or three-stone-fires. The term usually refers to stoves which are burning firewood, charcoal, agriculture residues or dung." - Sounds like it's not clear cut one way or the other... EMsmile (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that section and pasted it below. The section, as its title indicated, described some types of cook stoves that are not "improved", so I don't know why you concluded based on the section that ICS can include non-biomass stoves. Energypedia's definition is consistent with the other sources that I am familiar with. Firewood, charcoal, agriculture residues, and dung are all types of biomass.
W.r.t. your question Aren't any cookstoves that reduce indoor air pollution "improved"?, the answer is no. Gas and electric stoves, for instance, reduce indoor air pollution but are classified as "clean" cookstoves not "improved" cookstoves. I will remove "non-biomass" from the lead. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The definition on Energypedia does not say (in the first sentence) that improved means biomass cookstove. It says "Cookstoves are commonly called “improved” if they are more efficient, emit less emissions or are safer than the traditional cook stoves or three-stone-fires." The second sentence says "usually" biomass. Which indicates to me that others may subsume non biomass stoves under "improved" as well, like solar stoves. (why else the term "usually"?) Why don't we talk about "improved biomass cook stoves" then it would be clearer. So you would say a solar or electric stove is not improved compared to the 3-stone fires? EMsmile (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably know, Energypedia doesn't meet the criteria for being a WP:Reliable source. I suspect that our definition and/or terminology could use some adjustments, but that needs to be guided by reliable sources. If you can provide some that would be helpful. Let's keep in mind that the subject of this article is the range of cooking solutions that do not qualify as clean cooking facilities but have nevertheless been widely deployed. If we make the scope of this article all facilities that are better than 3-stone fires, we will end up duplicating Energy poverty and cooking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, as with Wikipedia, Energypedia is great to get an overview on the topic and to find additional references, but not as a citation itself. I haven't yet dug deeper but are any of the references that they use here any good for us? (when the topic is not medicine and health they don't need to meet WP:MEDRS). EMsmile (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, a pointer to a list of sources that are a mixture of reliable and unreliable is not helpful. What would be helpful would be if someone could choose a good range of sources, read them, and summarize them for the rest of us. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be better. I was hoping that we have some page watchers here somewhere who know those sources and can immediately pick out the important bits. Maybe we could contact some experts on improved cookstoves and invite them to review the article (like it was done for menstrual cycle). Or is it too early to do so? This topic is not my area of expertise, I just have a passing interest due to the relevance for the health of women and children. EMsmile (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some looking into the sources, and terminology and taxonomy are far messier than I had thought. The WHO makes a sharp distinction between "improved" and "clean" cooking facilities, but there are other sources, especially older ones such as this one from 2012, that refer to improved biomass stoves as "clean". I think I've seen at least one paper that uses the term "improved cookstove" as an umbrella term for both improved and clean cookstoves. I will post some thoughts below about how to deal with the messiness. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of cookstoves section

I've removed the following from the article as it is poorly sourced, overly-technical, and describes some types of cook stoves that are not "improved" cook stoves Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of cook stoves[1][2]

1. Three-stone fire
2. Early "ICS" "Improved Cook Stoves" to 1990s (clay/ceramic/buckets)
3. Fuel-controlled stoves (mainly Rocket stoves)
a. Simple (portable) b. Stationary (w/ chimney) c. Forced-air (FA)
4. Semi-gasifiers (mainly China and Vesto) w/ some air control
5. Gasifiers ("micro-" for cooking), some with FA (Fan Assistance)
a. Top-lit updraft (known as TLUDs) w/ migrating pyrolytic zone (batch)
b. Updrafts and downdrafts w/ stationary gasification zones (continuous)
c. Other drafts, including cross and opposite/opposing drafts
6. "Fan-jet" with very strong air currents into the fuel (3 known examples):
a. Philips-FA
b. Lucia-FA
c. Turbococina
7. Non-biomass. Stoves not using raw dry biomass fuels:
Charcoal; alcohol; refined fossils; coal; biogas; electric; solar.

Multi-mode capable stoves can be used only in one way at any one time.

Removing content on problems with traditional cook stoves[edit]

I'm planning to remove the following, which is either unsourced or uses non-MEDRS-compliant sources, and replace it with a summary from Energy poverty and cooking. Some of this could be moved to Energy poverty and cooking if better-referenced. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor air pollution

Cooking over a traditional open fire or mud stove can cause increased health problems brought on from the smoke, particularly lung and eye ailments, but also birth defects. The health problems associated with cooking using biomass in traditional stoves affect women and children most strongly, as they spend the most time near the domestic hearth. Replacing the traditional 3-rock cook stove or mud stove with an improved one and venting the smoke out of the house through a chimney can significantly improve a family's health. There are many well-documented adverse health effects of exposure to pollutants from indoor cookstoves, including acute respiratory infections (ARIs), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), cataracts, low birth weight (LBW), increased perinatal and infant mortality, nasopharyngeal and laryngeal cancer, and lung cancer. It is estimated that 4% to 5% of the global mortality and disability adjusted life-years (DALYs) are from ARIs, COPD, TB, asthma, lung cancer, ischemic heart disease, and blindness attributed to solid fuel combustion when cooking in developing countries.

Health impacts on women and children

Exposure to indoor air pollution (IAP) from the burning of fossil fuels, wood, animal dung and crop residues for cooking, heating and lighting accounts for a significant portion of the global burden of death and disease and disproportionately affects women and children in developing regions.[3] In developing regions, women are more often responsible for childcare and household duties such as cooking. This places women and children at the greatest exposure of IAP from burning solid fuel during cooking and heating of the home.[4]

Examples of specific health impact from the use of indoor cooking units includes new cases of asthma in children. The use of indoor cooking units has been shown to increase the risk of developing asthma by 2 to 3.5 times when controlling for all other factors.  These and other studies show that in addition to the irritants being inhaled, exposure to the indoor cooking units actually changes children's pulmonary response to the irritants with a more reactive and inflammatory response that may last well into adulthood. Given that indoor cooking units are in use in the most rural and remote communities, the development of asthma by a child can create a significant burden in a family and pose a significant risk for death if children are subject to an asthma attack and are without access to rescue inhaler or emergency medical care[5]

Built-in wood stove cooking food

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know what goes where (some of the indoor air pollution stuff needs to stay, like you have done now; the details could be elsewhere, I guess). I like your new shortened structure although I feel that these two sections overlap and could probably be merged: Reasons for use, Benefits. Or benefits to be a sub-heading to "reasons for use"? And I think for health related stuff, the sources need to be MEDRS-compliant sources but when it comes to the more social aspect then also "lower quality" sources could be compliant. For example for this kind of statement "In developing regions, women are more often responsible for childcare and household duties such as cooking. This places women and children at the greatest exposure of IAP from burning solid fuel during cooking and heating of the home.[4]"

References

  1. ^ Paul S. Anderson Archived 2013-06-20 at the Wayback Machine
  2. ^ Paul S. Anderson, 2011.Classification.pdf Archived 2012-09-17 at the Wayback Machine, PDF, Vrac.iastate.edu
  3. ^ "Improved Clean Cookstoves". Project Drawdown. 2020-02-07. Retrieved 2020-12-04.
  4. ^ a b Gall, E. T., Carter, E. M., Matt Earnest, C., & Stephens, B. (2013). Indoor air pollution in developing countries: research and implementation needs for improvements in global public health. American journal of public health, 103(4), e67-e72.
  5. ^ Schei, M. A., Hessen, J. O., Smith, K. R., Bruce, N., McCracken, J., & Lopez, V. (2004). Childhood asthma and indoor woodsmoke from cooking in Guatemala. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 14, S110-S117.

EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That example is already in the article. Merging Reasons for Use and Benefits would make the combined section too long. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "reasons for use" and "benefits" the same thing? Also what is your definition of "too long" for a section? EMsmile (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you on this - currently I'm reviewing sources and also catching up on some other tasks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that "Reasons for use" would encompass the constraints that make fully-clean cooking facilities difficult to deploy. The "Benefits" section should focus on actual benefits, which are different from the intended benefits. I was looking for a heading structure that would encourage further development of both sections. If you give people two short sections, people are more likely to expand them than if you give one long section.
Having said that, and in light of my findings above that the terminology used in the literature is heterogenous, I'm now thinking that it would be better to 1) Spin off List of improved biomass cookstoves into a separate article, 2) Redirect "improved cookstove" to Energy poverty and cooking. The issue of choosing between improved vs clean technologies needs to be discussed in both articles. The health outcomes of improved cookstove use are similar to the health outcomes of partial clean cookstove use. The challenges of getting people to use the new facilities are similar. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting and merging proposal[edit]

I propose that section Improved cookstove#Types be split into a separate page called List of improved biomass cookstoves and the rest of the page be merged into Energy poverty and cooking. Please discuss at Talk:Energy poverty and cooking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "Insulating ceramic rocket stoves" needs work[edit]

The section on "Insulating ceramic rocket stoves" needs some work to make it more encyclopedic and to improve the way it uses references and cites text from other publications. I currently don't have the time to do it myself but I just wanted to flag it up. EMsmile (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories