Abstract
The health and climate impacts of available household cooking options in developing countries vary sharply. Here, we analyze and compare these impacts (health; climate) and the potential co-benefits from the use of fuel and stove combinations. Our results indicate that health and climate impacts span 2 orders of magnitude among the technologies considered. Indoor air pollution is heavily impacted by combustion performance and ventilation; climate impacts are influenced by combustion performance and fuel properties including biomass renewability. Emission components not included in current carbon trading schemes, such as black carbon particles and carbon monoxide, can contribute a large proportion of the total climate impact. Multiple 'improved' stove options analyzed in this paper yield roughly equivalent climate benefits but have different impacts on indoor air pollution. Improvements to biomass stoves can improve indoor air quality, which nonetheless remains significantly higher than for stoves that use liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons. LPG- and kerosene-fueled stoves have unrivaled air quality benefits and their climate impacts are also lower than all but the cleanest stoves using renewable biomass.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 7530-7542 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Energy Policy |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue number | 12 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 2011 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The authors thank Professor Michael Brauer for helpful discussions. JDM received partial support from the University of Minnesota, via the Institute on the Environment and via a McKnight Land-Grant award.
Keywords
- Household energy
- Intake fraction
- Integrated assessment
