Jumaa, charcoal retailer, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
We just couldn’t resist preempting Steve Jobs‘ announcement of the next hot Apple gadget with our own launch today, the world’s first:
Steve Jobs, Apple Inc. California
Global Biomass Index
As we indicated before, the index will track the price of biomass and related fuels around the world.
The Charcoal Project Global Biomass Index
The tool is a work in progress and you can expect to see greater functionality with each new version.
Ultimately, however, the index will only succeed if you help us by contributing information from wherever you are.
You can email your data to: index[at]charcoalproject[dot]org
Please make certain you contribute at least the fields in red!
Location: (Province, district, town, city, etc. Multiple locations are encouraged!)
Country:
Date:
Type of biomass: (Please be as descriptive as possible, ie: heavy/light charchoal, briquettes type, wood type, etc.)
Local unit of measure: (kg, sack, pound, coffee can, jug, etc. Please be as descriptive or aproximative as possible as the units will be standardized later.)
Price in local currency: (Is the price wholesale or retail?)
Conversion rate of local currency to Euros & USD: (We can do this on our end if you don’t know. Click here for Google’s handy online converter.)
Information about alternative fuel of choice, if available: (Charcoal vs LPG, or charcoal vs woodfuel, or charcoal vs briquettes, or briquettes vs LPG, or charcoal vs kerosene, you get the idea…)
Unit of measure: (100lbs cylinder of LPG, for example, or one gallon/liter of kerosene, etc.)
Local cost of alternative fuel per unit of measure:
Person or organization submitting and email. (Emails will be kept confidential and will only be used for corroborating information)
As always, we welcome your suggestions as to how we can make this resource more useful to the end user.
A very special thank you to Christina, our Chief Technology Goddess, for making this happen!
And thank you for supporting The Charcoal Project in our effort to build the global network of biomass energy stakeholders.
— The team at The Charcoal Project
This table shows only some of the categories tracked by the index.
Equipping 50 percent of households that burn biomass with improved stoves by 2015 would cost about $2 billion upfront but would almost immediately yield $37 billion in fuel savings, leaving a net gain to the world’s energy poor of some $35 billion.
Over a ten year period this would generate an economic return of U$105 billion.
These gains would come from savings in health related costs and productivity gains, according to a 2006 World Health Organization study sent to us by Dr. Eva A. Rehfuess, a co-author on the report and now with the University of Munich. (Dr. Rehfuess, your work makes you our hero of the day!)
The study, entitled Evaluation of the cost and benefit of household energy and health interventions at global and regional levels (see the WHO web page here) concludes that the gains in health and productivity far outweigh the overall cost of the interventions.
A single stove option was modeled in this global study due to data constraints and the complexities of attempting to reflect different stove options in different parts of the world.
Costs and benefits were modelled under three specific interventions: 
Scenario I: reducing by 50% the population without access to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) by 2015
Scenario II: reducing by 50% the population without access to biofuel (ethanol) by 2015
Scenario III: reducing by 50% the population without access to chimney-less “rocket” stoves by 2015
The study reveals that making improved stoves available to all those still burning biomass fuels and coal on traditional stoves would result in a negative intervention cost of US$ 34 billion and generate an economic return of US$ 105 billion a year over a ten-year period.
The net present value, shown in Table 6 (above), is the estimated annual economic surplus, and is calculated by subtracting net costs from economic benefits. The results show that the scenarios lead to net economic benefits of between US$ 77 billion and US$ 139 billion per year at global level. A significant proportion of these benefits is seen in WPR-B. Globally, the net present value tends to be higher in urban areas than in rural areas.
This study shows that health and productivity gains make household energy interventions potentially good value for money.
Missing from the study are the financial co-benefits associated with reduction of black carbon from burning biomass more efficiently and the potential for income generation from carbon credits generated by these stove projects.
Does anyone have any idea what the financial potential for these are?
We’re thrilled to finally see some numbers attached to a cost benefit of improved cookstoves!
Mongolian gers are as cozy looking as they are deadly
EuroAsiaNet.org
MONGOLIA: ULAANBAATAR GRAPPLES WITH SMOG PROBLEM
Andrew Cullen: 3/23/10
Mongolia calls itself the land of blue sky, but for seven long months each year, a thick cloud of smog hangs over the capital, Ulaanbaatar. Seeking to improve the quality of life for the city’s approximately 1 million inhabitants, local bankers and development organizations are striving to combat pollution at its main source – suburban family homes.
From October to April each year, 60 percent of Ulaanbaatar’s air pollution is generated by residents of the city’s sprawling ger districts, according to World Bank data. These residential areas on the outskirts of Ulaanbaatar are home to an estimated 150,000 households, with most living in traditional Mongolian gers, also known as yurts, and single-family homes that can resemble log cabins. These neighborhoods are not linked to the city’s central system that heats apartments and office buildings. Thus, most families in the ger districts burn a combination of wood and coal for heating and cooking. The poorest burn tires, trash, and whatever else they can find to stay warm during Mongolia’s frigid winters.
Coal-fired ger stoves release high levels of ash and other particulate matter (PM). When inhaled, these particles can settle in the lungs and respiratory tract and cause health problems. At two to 10 times above Mongolian and international air quality standards, Ulaanbaatar’s PM rates are among the worst in the world, according to a December 2009 World Bank report. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) estimates that health costs related to this air pollution account for as much as 4 percent of Mongolia’s GDP. (Read the whole story)
Thanks to USAID’s Indoor Air Pollution Updates for bringing this article to our attention.
We recently announced The Charcoal Project’s intention to help quantify the cost to society of current levels and practices of biomass consumption in the developing world.
Once we discover the direct and indirect costs of “business as usual”, we can then figure out the cost-benefit of pushing for the large-scale adoption of energy efficiency technology and policies.
Starting today you will find a section titled Biomass in Numbers on the right-hand column. Here you will find blurbs and links to information that will help us better understand the true cost of energy poverty.
We launch this section today with the following study:
1. Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Economic Well-being. Feb. 2008. Esther Duflo, Michael Greenstone (MIT Dpt. of Economics) & Rema Hanna (NYU, School of Public Service). Not surprisingly, the study concludes there is a dearth of information on this issue.
Which is why we invite you to help us by submitting your own research!
As a reminder, some of the costs associated with energy poverty and the use of biomass are:
• Time spent gathering fuel
• Gender
• Environment
• Energy-efficiency
• Health
• Agricultural productivity
• Contribution to Climate Change
