Presentation on theme: "Energy Considerations for MDM Programme Priyadarshini Karve Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd."— Presentation transcript:
Energy Considerations for MDM Programme Priyadarshini Karve Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd
The Scale MDM scheme involves cooking of about 3000 ton of food per day. Energy required to boil 3000 ton of water = 21,60,00,000 kcal If 100% work done on firewood with three stone fire, firewood required = approx 360,000 kg If 100% work done on LPG, the amount of LPG required = approx 33,000 kg Cooking the same quantity of food, comprising of mostly rice and pulse, requires much higher energy input.
Energy Flow in the cooking system Chemical energy ‘locked’ in the fuel Heat in the ‘fire’ Heat in the ‘cooking pot’ Heat from ignition and air Heat loss to atmosphere Unburnt / partially burnt fuel leading to ‘loss’ The factors that directly impact the energy flow are: The fuel + stove combination The cooking utensils The menu and quantity of food to be cooked The cooking practices The indirectly important factors for the cooking energy system are: Kitchen architecture Process in place for organic waste disposal (to explore the possibility of biogas)
Current Status No specific guideline for energy use at present No specific budget provided for cooking energy/fuel Common practice in many states: Cooking is done on three stone fires in the school premises LPG is a preferred option, but not always affordable or available Adverse consequences: – Adverse impact on health of the cooks due to smoke and soot inhalation – School children and staff also get exposed to smoke and soot emission – Potential fire hazard – Environmental impact in case of unsustainable harvesting of firewood
Why separate thinking is required for MDM cooking energy need? MDM cooking is a unique and specialised cooking energy service – a holistic service-focused approach is possible. In household cooking, the performance criteria focus on heat source alone, as everything else is variable. In commercial or institutional cooking, the performance criteria can focus on fuel + stove+ a limited number of cooking utensils, but other things are variable. In MDM cooking, – menu and quantity of food are specified, – kitchen architecture can be specified, – cooks can be trained.
Possibilities Emerging from Holistic Approach Use of cooking utensils tailor made to suit specific food items and quantities can improve fuel use efficiency without making any change in the fuel + stove system. Experiment with materials of cooking utensils and insulations to achieve maximum heat transfer efficiency from the flame to the food and minimum heat loss from the surface of the utensils. Fuel + stove combination exactly suited to the type and quantity of food to be cooked. Uniquely designed systems comprising of fuel + stove + utensils can be envisaged, with fantastically high efficiency and time saving.
ASHDEN AWARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, 2002 Sarai Cooking System, consisting of a charcoal brazier, cooker pot, a set of three utensils, and a tailor made pot skirt. Available in four sizes to suit different food quantity requirements. 70% more efficient than cooking the same quantity of food on a traditional charcoal brazier. Jumbo Sarai suited for small schools/anganwadi, to cook rice and dal for about 15-20 children. We promote ‘renewable’ charcoal made from locally available biomass waste through local livelihood generation. Example of Holistic Approach: Sarai Cooking System
Wide Variety of Options Three stones + firewood Traditional stove (different designs) + firewood Improved stove (different designs) + firewood Improved stove (different designs) + biomass briquettes Pressurised kerosene stove + kerosene LPG stove + LPG Biogas stove + biogas produced from cowdung and/or kitchen waste Electric stove (different designs) + electricity Solar cooking (different designs) Combinations of all or several of the above Combining any of these with specially designed cooking utensils suited to cook various items on the menu
Advantages of Proposed Approach A school may short list cooking energy system options that fit into the defined criteria and are easily accessible locally. The final decision is likely to be driven by economic considerations. High performance and safety standards can be achieved through totally tailor made solutions. With super-optimal performance, better fuel use economy can be achieved, in a practical and user-friendly manner.
Is it possible to have a universally applicable MDM kitchen energy policy? A basic set of performance guidelines can be developed, and decision making tool can be designed that will allow each school to make the best choice. The guidelines should be focused on how best to deliver the cooking energy service, rather than focusing only on the stove performance, in isolation. Field level data collection, R&D ad piloting in different agro- climatic and socio-economic zones of the country is an essential step in this process.
Proposed Scope of Performance Guidelines – For further discussion Energy Efficiency Threshold for maximum energy input required in kcal or kJ/kg of food item cooked Thresholds of CO and PM 2.5 emission allowable IAQ and ambient temperature standard for the cooking space Any other? Safety Safety from fire (applicable to fuel storage and use) Safety from burns and scalding Safety from contamination of food through the energy system (e.g., soot and smoke passing into the food) Any other? User Friendliness Ignition time Turn down ratio Cooking time (more specifically, time required to attend to the cooking process) Any other?
Proposed Next Steps – For further discussion Each performance standard to be expressed in terms of quantifiable terms, measurable using portable, low-tech testing equipments and low-skill test protocols. Simple test protocols and decision making tools that will help schools or SHGs in charge of MDM kitchens in schools to identify the best cooking energy system combination. Test protocols to help in routine inspections and validations.
Example of Decision Making Approach Energy required for boiling water = 72 kcal/kg Service required: Boiling 100 lit of water Running cost for a fuel + stove system = [(72 kcal x 100 kg x 100/efficiency in percentage)/calorific value in kcal/kg] x price of fuel in Rs./kg Fuel + StoveCapital CostRunning CostPay back period LPG + LPG StoveRs.5,000Rs.87-- Biomass briquettes + forced draft gasifier stove Rs.20,000Rs.45Approx 2 academic years Solar parabolic concentratorRs.30,000ZeroApprox 1.5 academic years Alternative approaches that may be considered: Ordinary solar water heater (capital cost about Rs.10,000) to first heat the water to about 50 deg C, and then use any stove for further heating. Use an insulated utensil specially designed as water boiler, with any of the fuel + stove combinations. Any other….
Example of Possible Redesigning: Green and Clean Kitchen Estimated 50-60 kg kitchen waste Estimated 20-25 kg biogas from two large biogas plants Estimated 8-10 kg LPG eq/day 2 commercial stoves run for 4-5 hrs each per day = Rs.600-800 saved/day Commercial cylinder as back up Example: 1000 meals/day consisting of roti, vegetable, dal, rice, sweet are cooked in the community kitchen. Original energy usage: 1.5 commercial cylinder/day 60 kg biomass briquettes @ Rs.10/kg = Rs.600 Daily 6 hr use of two Sushmanth Stoves 20 kg LPG equivalent/day = Rs.1000 saved/day Kitchen energy system can be redesigned to reduce dependence on commercial LPG for any community or commercial kitchen.
Financing for Energy System? Potential donors and funders: Petroleum companies, local business houses (under CSR activity), local government bodies, etc. Seed finance: Local banks, SHG federations, etc. Carbon/Climate finance: Monetisation of the carbon emission reduction accrued through reducing use of unsustainably harvested firewood and substitution of LPG. Any other?
Overlap with other discussions Menus and standard operating practices for cooking various items Kitchen architecture best suited to MDM cooking and serving Training modules for different stakeholders Role of academic/research institutes for data collection and pilot studies Collaborations with potential co-funding/sponsoring agencies Any other?